2018 (6) TMI 1356 - AT - Service Tax

Renting of Immovable Property Service - invocation of extended period of limitation - case of appellant is that extended period of limitation was not applicable before June 2000 since the said levy was introduced through Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect of 01.06.2007 onwards - Held that - Tribunal in the case of M/s.Jindal Vegetables Products Ltd. v. C.C.E. Meerut-II 2013 (3) TMI 56 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that when during the period of dispute there was doubt about interpretation of some provision of law on account of conflicting judgements which were later on resolved by a larger Bench, the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Service Tax on 'Renting of Immovable Property' Service for the period from 2007-08 to 2013-14.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for the aforementioned period.
3. Interpretation of conflicting judgments and its impact on invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1).

Analysis:

1. The case involved a demand for Service Tax on 'Renting of Immovable Property' Service for the period from 2007-08 to 2013-14. The respondent was issued a show cause notice demanding Service Tax amounting to ?29,19,194 by invoking proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order-in-appeal held that the demand for the period 2007-08 to June 2010 was not sustainable due to the retrospective introduction of the levy through the Finance Act, 2010, with effect from 01.06.2007 onwards.

2. The main issue was the applicability of the extended period of limitation for the period up to June 2010. The Revenue contended that the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the said period despite the retrospective amendment of Section 65(105)(zzzz) from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal and noted that the Commissioner(Appeals) had based the decision on a previous Tribunal order and a ruling by the Supreme Court, stating that in cases of doubt due to conflicting judgments, the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) cannot be invoked.

3. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of conflicting judgments and their impact on invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1). By relying on the ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner(Appeals) had correctly applied the legal principles. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that the findings were based on the Supreme Court's ruling and hence upheld the impugned order-in-appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the applicability of the extended period of limitation in cases where there is doubt due to conflicting judgments, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents in such matters.