2008 (7) TMI 190 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation allegation of non-disclosure of Business Auxiliary Service provided - It is from the balance sheet of the respondent, revenue came to know about the service provided whether these was suppression, is a question of fact to be established in each case commissioner in the impugned order has not analyzed whether the withholding of information was deliberate or conscious matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Disclosure of Business Auxiliary Service by the respondent.
2. Interpretation of balance sheet as a public document.
3. Allegation of intention to evade tax.
4. Application of limitation period in tax liability cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not disclose the Business Auxiliary Service provided by them, and the information was only discovered from the respondent's balance sheet. The Revenue cited the decision in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad to support their argument.

Issue 2: The respondent argued that the balance sheet is a public document, and as they had disclosed the relevant figures in it, there was no intention to evade tax. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coaltar Chemicals Manufacturing Co. vs. Union of India, emphasizing the need for something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the assessee to establish liability for a longer limitation period.

Issue 3: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not delve into whether the withholding of information by the respondent was deliberate or conscious. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled that when the amount was reflected in the balance sheet, no suppression could be alleged against the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that the matter required reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) solely on the issue of limitation.

Issue 4: Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to take into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal's decision aimed at ensuring a fair assessment of the limitation period in tax liability cases.