2018 (3) TMI 1247 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - grievance of the Revenue is that there is a case for suppression of material facts on the part of the respondent and impugned order should not have dropped the proceedings on limitation - Held that - The impugned order held that seeing the accounts maintained and the nature of contracts and the correspondent with the Revenue by the respondent, there is no scope for invoking extended period - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against dropping of demand and limitation period for service tax liability

In this case, the Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the demand against the respondent for the period up to 15/06/2005 and holding that the proceedings against the respondent were barred by limitation. The respondent was engaged in various activities like operation and maintenance of electrical service, computer wiring of office, supply of manpower for maintenance of electrical installation, supply and fixing of public lighting, maintenance and repair of buildings. The Original Authority held the respondent liable to taxes and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the activities were not liable to tax before 15/06/2005 due to an amendment in the tax entry. The impugned order also found no suppression or willful misstatement by the respondent based on their intimation and correspondence. The appeal was allowed by the impugned order.

Upon hearing both sides, the Revenue contended that there was suppression of material facts by the respondent, and the proceedings should not have been dropped on limitation grounds. The Revenue argued that the respondent was fully liable for service tax without any limitation bar. However, the impugned order had thoroughly examined all types of work subjected to service tax and found no reason to vary the findings. The Revenue failed to provide any material facts to support their argument.

Regarding the limitation issue, the impugned order extensively analyzed the facts of the case. The enquiry against the respondent began in 2004, and the respondent obtained registration for service tax in the same year. The impugned order concluded that there was no scope for invoking the extended period based on the accounts maintained, nature of contracts, and correspondence with the Revenue. Additionally, the impugned order noted that certain properties maintained by the respondent were Government buildings, which were exempt from service tax under a special provision introduced in 2012 for retrospective exemption.

After reviewing the detailed examination conducted by the impugned order and finding no contrary factual assertions in the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the findings of the impugned order.