9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 824 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - Levy of Service Tax - Goods Transport Agency services - Manpower Services - liability of service received under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - HELD THAT - Both sides agree that the Appellant was otherwise liable to pay tax under RCM and, therefore, this aspect is not looked into, while disposing the present appeals. Extended Period of Limitation - HELD THAT - The Appellant had made categorical submissions in this regard which finds mention in the order in appeal but there is no finding on the same. In any case, when the issue is no more res integra that where the assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit of the tax paid under RCM, there cannot be any question of invocation of extended period. It is also a settled legal position that where there were divergent views on the issue and even if it is ultimately settled against the assessee, extended period cannot be invoked. It is also an admitted fact that the entire case was made out on the basis of information available in statutory books of account - the very basis of the show cause notice is the audit objection meaning thereby that the entire demand was raised on the basis of information found available in statutory books of the Appellant and hence even otherwise, there cannot be any scope for invocation of extended period. The judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VERSUS TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. 2015 (1) TMI 760 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, where it was held that mere suppression of facts without there being a deliberate act of fraud, etc. with the intention to evade payment of duty cannot entitle the department to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The demands for the period beyond the normal period of limitation as applicable during the relevant period are set aside - Appeal allowed on the ground of limitation.
Issues:
Appeal against demand on account of service tax under reverse charge mechanism for Goods Transport Agency services and Manpower Services. Analysis: 1. Invocation of Extended Period: - Appellant challenged orders confirming demand for service tax under reverse charge mechanism for GTA and Manpower Services. - Appellant contended that credit was admissible for tax paid under RCM, hence no revenue loss to invoke extended period of limitation. - Cited Supreme Court judgment on admissibility of credit, argued against invocation of extended period due to contrary views pre-dating the settled law. - Appellant did not contest the leviability of service tax but challenged the extended period demands. - Show cause notice invoked extended period solely on non-payment of tax and non-filing of returns, without considering admissibility of credit. - Referral to Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings supporting the admissibility of credit under RCM. - Appellant argued demand was time-barred, citing Allahabad High Court judgment on demand raised post-audit. 2. Admissibility of Credit on GTA Services: - Although not directly involved, admissibility of credit on GTA services considered for limitation issue. - Until Supreme Court judgment on the matter, conflicting decisions existed, preventing invocation of extended period. 3. Revenue's Argument and Tribunal's Decision: - Revenue claimed evasion detected during audit as basis for invoking extended period. - Tribunal noted both parties agreed on the liability under RCM, not delving into that aspect. - Tribunal found no finding on the Appellant's submissions regarding extended period in the lower authority's order. - Ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside demands beyond the normal limitation period due to lack of grounds for extended period invocation. 4. Conclusion: - Tribunal's decision on both appeals favored the Appellant on the ground of limitation. - Demands for periods beyond the normal limitation set aside, providing consequential relief to the Appellant. In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata primarily revolved around the challenge to demands for service tax under reverse charge mechanism for GTA and Manpower Services. The Appellant successfully argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, citing admissibility of credit under RCM and lack of grounds for evasion. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside demands beyond the normal limitation period, emphasizing the importance of considering admissibility of credit and the basis for invoking extended periods in such cases.
|
