2010 (12) TMI 118 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Period of limitation - Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.03.07 - Impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05 - The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06 - There is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07 - The demand cannot be held to be time barred - The appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of service tax demand for a specific period, Time bar for issuing Show Cause Notice, Allegation of suppression of value of taxable service, Proper quantification of service tax, Abatement available to the respondents.

Confirmation of Service Tax Demand:
The respondents filed an appeal against the confirmation of service tax demand for the period from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The lower appellate authority did not delve into the merits of the case but ruled that the demand was time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 12.03.07. The Order-in-Original did not mention any suppression by the respondents. However, it was noted that the respondents registered for service tax on 06.12.05 and filed their first return on 04.12.06 after a significant delay. The show cause notice dated 12.03.07 alleged suppression of the value of taxable service.

Time Bar Issue:
The Tribunal found that the demand was not time-barred due to the delayed registration and filing of returns by the respondents. As the lower appellate authority did not address the merits of the case, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh order after considering both sides. The respondents were allowed to raise the issue of proper quantification of service tax during the denovo proceedings.

Allegation of Suppression:
The show cause notice alleged suppression of the value of taxable service by the respondents. This allegation was a crucial factor in determining the time bar for the demand. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case indicated that the issue of suppression needed further examination and clarification.

Proper Quantification of Service Tax and Abatement:
The respondents claimed to have paid the service tax amount considering a 75% abatement available to them. However, the authorities did not address the question of abatement. The Tribunal allowed the respondents to raise the issue of proper quantification of service tax during the fresh proceedings before the lower appellate authority.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed consideration of the merits of the case, including the allegations of suppression and the proper quantification of service tax. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing all relevant issues comprehensively in such matters.