9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 700 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - VCES scheme - invocation of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 - demand on the ground that the appellant had not filed ST-3 returns till the issue of show cause notice - HELD THAT - The learned Original Authority has accepted the plea of the appellant that the details of the transactions were recorded by the appellant in their specified records. Further, he was held that the appellants were entitled to reduced penalty. This indicates that there were no elements for invoking extended period of limitation - Further, in view of submissions of the learned Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant that the amount voluntarily deposited was more than service tax liability for normal period, there were no provisions for issue of said show cause notice dated 05.06.2017 in view of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, subject SCN was not sustainable. The impugned Order-in-Original is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Invocation of extended period of limitation for raising a demand in respect of Service Tax. 2. Validity of show cause notice dated 05.06.2017. 3. Entitlement for reduced penalty under proviso to Section 78(1) of Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: Issue 1: Invocation of extended period of limitation for raising a demand in respect of Service Tax The appellants were registered with the Service Tax Department and opted for the VCES Scheme, declaring their unpaid service tax liability up to 31.12.2012. Subsequently, they were issued a show cause notice for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.09.2015, invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The ground for invoking the extended period was the alleged non-filing of ST-3 returns. The appellants argued that since they had paid late fees for the delayed filing of returns and all transactions were recorded in their books, there was no suppression of facts or fraudulent intent. The Original Authority confirmed the demand but acknowledged that the appellants were entitled to a reduced penalty under the proviso to Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue 2: Validity of show cause notice dated 05.06.2017 The appellants contended that the show cause notice dated 05.06.2017 was not sustainable as the amount voluntarily deposited by them exceeded the service tax liability for the normal period. They argued that there were no grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation as all transactions were recorded, and the late fees for delayed ST-3 returns had been paid. The Tribunal noted that the details of transactions were recorded by the appellants, and the amount deposited was more than the normal service tax liability for the relevant period. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 05.06.2017 was deemed unsustainable under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue 3: Entitlement for reduced penalty under proviso to Section 78(1) of Finance Act, 1994 The Tribunal upheld the appellants' argument that they were entitled to a reduced penalty due to the recording of transaction details and the absence of elements warranting the invocation of the extended period of limitation. As a result, the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief as per law. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice was not sustainable due to the absence of grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation, leading to the allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the Order-in-Original.
|
