2008 (1) TMI 326 - AT - Service Tax

Consulting Engineer Services Recovery of tax - assessee had disclosed all the details about his activity right from the year 2000 - also furnished the details in 2001 and 2002 - department kept quite and did not issue demand notice till 21-4-2005 for the period 1-10-1999 to 31-3-2003 - No ground of willful suppression had been made out by the department for invoking larger period - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the part demands as barred by time

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner's Order setting aside part demand on the ground of limitation for the period from 1-10-1999 to 31-3-2003.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Commissioner's Order setting aside part of the demand due to limitation issues. The appellant, a service provider, had raised concerns regarding the applicability of Service Tax on their services as a valuer of movable and immovable property under the category of Consulting Engineer. The Commissioner noted that the appellant had disclosed this activity in various correspondences since 2000. Despite the appellant's voluntary disclosure of details and the department's awareness of the situation, no action was taken until the issuance of a show-cause notice in 2005. The Commissioner found that the grounds for invoking a larger period were not substantiated and, therefore, held that the larger period was not invokable. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the part demands as barred by time and remanded the case for further review.

Upon reviewing the grounds of appeal and hearing the arguments, the Judicial Member observed that the appellant had consistently disclosed details about their activities since 2000. The department had been informed in 2001 and had requested details in 2002, which were duly provided by the appellant. However, the department failed to take any action until the issuance of the show-cause notice in 2005. The Judicial Member concurred with the Commissioner's decision, stating that there was no justification for invoking a larger period due to the appellant's voluntary disclosure of information. The Judicial Member found no merit in the revenue's arguments for invoking a larger period, as the appellant had been forthcoming with details since 2000. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision to set aside the part demands based on the limitation issue.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of timely action by tax authorities and the significance of voluntary disclosure by taxpayers. The case underscores the principle that without substantiated grounds for invoking a larger period, demands cannot be upheld when the taxpayer has diligently disclosed relevant information. The decision serves as a reminder of the legal requirements regarding the invocation of a larger period for tax assessments and the implications of wilful suppression of facts in tax matters.