Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (1) TMI 400 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the Order-in-Original confirming part of the demand along with interest and penalty, calculation of service tax liability, time limitation for issuing show cause notice, and applicability of interest and penalty.

Calculation of Service Tax Liability:
The appellant provided taxable services and was alleged to have not discharged the service tax liability for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. The Commissioner confirmed a balance amount of Rs. 40,01,704 for the period 1.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, after dropping certain amounts due to wrong calculation and excess demand. The appellant challenged the computation of demand, arguing that receipts for the whole year were treated as those for the second half-year. The Tribunal examined the summary of ST-3 Returns and found discrepancies in the calculation methodology.

Time Limitation for Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice was issued on 21.04.2014, beyond the period of five years from the relevant date. The relevant date for computing the period of five years was determined based on the filing of returns. As per the provisions of the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules, the notice was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that no demand can be raised beyond the period of five years, rendering the notice unsustainable.

Interest and Penalty:
The Revenue argued that the appellant did not cooperate and wilfully suppressed facts, justifying the imposition of interest and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. However, since the show cause notice was deemed time-barred, the Tribunal held that neither the demand nor the interest and penalty were maintainable or leviable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Separate Judgement by Judges:
The judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. P. V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical).

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates