2016 (5) TMI 1079 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - Contract for outdoor catering services - non-registration and non-payment of tax - Held that - The show cause notice merely states that the appellant had willfully suppressed the facts of provision of taxable service without elaborating as to what was the suppression. In para 8 of the notice, with regard to the proposal for penalty under section 78, it has been alleged that the appellant willfully suppressed the taxable value with an intention to evade payment of service tax. There is no elaboration or finding substantiating the said allegation. It is settled law that mere allegation unsupported by reasonable evidence thereof is per se unsustainable. The demand made under cover of extended period of limitation deserves to be set aside. This principle is equally applicable to the imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. The invocation of extended period is unsustainable as the non-registration and non-payment of tax is a mere omission not traceable to guilty mind, a pre-requisite for such invocation. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for service tax demand.
2. Validity of penalty under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act.
3. Allegations of willful suppression and evasion of service tax.
4. Consideration of compassionate grounds in service contract.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the time limitation for service tax demand. The appellant, engaged in outdoor catering services, received a show cause notice after a significant delay, raising concerns about the period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the demand to the preceding five years from the date of notice, deeming the balance demand time-barred.

2. The validity of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act was contested. The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties, citing lack of fraud or suppression justifying the extended period. The Tribunal considered case laws and emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence to support allegations of willful suppression for penalty imposition.

3. The issue of willful suppression and evasion of service tax was crucial. The show cause notice accused the appellant of intentionally concealing taxable services without providing concrete evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for substantial proof to sustain such allegations, emphasizing the lack of specific details in the notice.

4. The Tribunal also considered the appellant's circumstances, such as being a widow running the catering business due to personal tragedies. The compassionate grounds under which the service contract was awarded were taken into account. This factor, along with the absence of deliberate wrongdoing, influenced the decision to set aside the extended period and penalty under section 78.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the grounds of limitation and penalty under section 78. The decision emphasized the importance of evidence in allegations of willful suppression and considered the appellant's situation in reaching a just outcome.