2023 (4) TMI 611 - AT - Service Tax

Invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - the period involved is July 2003 to July 2004 and the show cause notice was issued on 12.01.2007 - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - The intention to evade payment of service tax and suppression of facts needs to be determined based on the evidence available on records. As long as the assessee is registered and continues to file returns as required and supplies information sought by the officers, nothing more is required from the assessee. The assessee is required to self assess its service tax, and the officer is required to carry out the scrutiny of the returns if filed or otherwise make best judgement assessment. The appellant had taken service tax registration and admittedly it had not filed any ST-3 returns. Even if the appellant was under the impression that it was not required to file returns or pay tax, there can be no justification whatsoever for the appellant to not reply to or provide information which is sought by the officers. Since the appellant had not supplied the information despite repeated reminders from the Range Superintendent, the Assistant Commissioner did what was best possible under the circumstances. Thus, the lower authorities were correct in concluding that the appellant had intention to evade payment of service tax and had suppressed providing the information - there are no reason to interfere with the penalties imposed as well. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the demand of service tax, imposition of penalties, suppression of facts, and invocation of extended period of limitation.

Demand of service tax:
The appellant, a service provider registered with the Service Tax Department, was issued a show cause notice demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant appealed against this order, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Suppression of facts and extended period of limitation:
The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts and thus the extended period of limitation should not have been invoked. The appellant argued that it was not required to disclose certain information to the department and that no penalty should be imposed as there was no suppression of facts. However, the authorities found that the appellant had wilfully evaded paying service tax by not following the procedure of service tax laws, not filing periodical returns, and avoiding submitting returns despite repeated reminders. The Assistant Commissioner made a best judgment assessment based on information obtained from the Income Tax department regarding the amounts received by the appellant. The authorities concluded that the appellant had the intention to evade payment of service tax and had suppressed providing information, justifying the penalties imposed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, stating that the appellant had the intention to evade payment of service tax and had suppressed providing information. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the penalties imposed, as the appellant had not complied with the requirements despite repeated reminders. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.