2015 (2) TMI 1064 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - discrepancy in filing of return - Held that - correct service tax liability was indicated in the ST-3 returns filed with the Department. Short payment of service tax, if, any was apparent from the figures shown in the ST-3 returns. That once correct calculations have been shown by the appellant then, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of service tax, therefore, extended period cannot be invoked and that show cause notice was time barred. It is observed from the relied upon case laws that the issue involved is no more res-Integra. In the case of Commissioner vs. Megnmani Dyes & Intermediate Ltd. (2013 (6) TMI 141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) it has been observed by jurisdictional Gujarat High Court that if, prescribed returns are filed by an appellant giving correct information then extended period cannot be invoked. In the present proceedings also prescribed ST-3 returns were filed by the appellant and it is not disputed that correct calculations of service tax were not shown and differential tax payable was apparent from the figures furnished by the appellant. Under the above factual matrix available on record appellant cannot be held to have suppressed any information with intention to evade service tax. Accordingly, it is held that extended period cannot be invoked in the present proceedings and appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed on time bar, as demand is for the period 2005-06 dt 2006-07 and show cause notice was issued on 1/2/2010 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appellant challenging OIA No. AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-250 to 251-13-14 Dated 20-11-2013 upholding OIO No. 06/ORS/STC-AHD/ADC (MRM)/12-13 Dated 14-08-2012.
- Whether extended period of payment is invokable.
- Applicability of correct service tax liability indicated in ST-3 returns.
- Interpretation of case laws supporting time-barred demand.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a dispute regarding the extended period of payment and the correctness of service tax liability indicated in the ST-3 returns filed by the Appellant. The Appellant argued that the demand of &8377; 6,18,946 was issued based on a CERA objection for short payment of service tax, but contended that the correct service tax liability was reflected in the ST-3 returns, hence the extended period should not be invokable. The Appellant relied on various case laws to support their argument, emphasizing that once correct calculations are shown in the returns, the extended period cannot be invoked. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the extended period is applicable as the Appellant failed to provide details showing that short payments were rectified in subsequent months. The Tribunal examined the case records and determined that the issue at hand was whether the extended period of payment could be invoked. It was noted that if correct information is provided in the prescribed returns, the extended period cannot be invoked, as highlighted in the case of Commissioner vs. Meghmani Dyes & Intermediate Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had filed the prescribed ST-3 returns with correct calculations of service tax, and any differential tax payable was apparent from the figures provided. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Appellant did not intend to evade service tax, and the extended period could not be invoked. As a result, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of being time-barred, considering the period in question and the date of the show cause notice issuance.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal on the basis that the extended period of payment was not invokable due to the correct service tax liability being indicated in the ST-3 returns filed by the Appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing accurate information in prescribed returns to avoid the invocation of the extended period for demand of service tax.