2024 (4) TMI 1013 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - Works Contract Service - Service receiver had already discharged the service tax liability - demand raised on the basis of third party information i.e. data revealed from ITR/Form 26-AS from Income Tax Department - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the service receiver PVVNL deposited the entire service tax amount on the works contract services provided by the Appellant. This Tribunal in the case of NAVYUG ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE C, VADODARA-II 2008 (8) TMI 100 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD has held that once tax is already paid on the services, it was not open to the Department to confirm the same against the Appellant in respect of the same services, since after accepting the said tax from service recipient, Revenue did not refund the same. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT - The demand is barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the longer period. The Revenue picked up the figures from the Income Tax Return maintained by the Assessee. The Income Tax Return has been held to be public documents by various decisions and it stands concluded that when the income arising from various activities stand reflected in the said public documents, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or misstatement on the part of the Assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation - Reference can be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of C.S.T. NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. KAMAL LALWANI 2016 (12) TMI 398 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , laying down that extended period is not invocable if services rendered are reflected in Balance Sheet and Income Tax returns and no evidence stands produced that non-payment of duty was due to any mala fide intention. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original, demand raised based on third party information from Income Tax Department, confirmation of demand and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994, claim of double taxation, and invocation of extended period of limitation.

Dismissal of Appeal:
The appeal was filed by the Appellant against the Order-In-Appeal dated 21.06.2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original.

Demand Based on Third Party Information:
The demand was raised on the basis of third party information obtained from the Income Tax Department, specifically from the ITR/Form 26-AS for the F.Y.-2016-17, alleging that the Appellant had not paid Service Tax on the income shown in the ITR.

Confirmation of Demand and Penalties:
The Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2022 confirmed a demand of Rs.6,34,476/- and imposed penalties under Sections 78, 77(1)(a), 77(2), 77(1)(c) & 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, based on the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice.

Claim of Double Taxation:
The Appellant claimed that the service receiver had already paid the entire service tax amount on the works contract services provided by the Appellant, and invoking double taxation would be unjustified as per the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal found that the demand was barred by limitation as the figures were picked from the Income Tax Return, which is considered a public document, and there was no suppression or misstatement by the Assessee. Citing various decisions, including the case of C.S.T., New Delhi v. Kamal Lalwani and Commissioner of Central Tax v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd., it was concluded that the extended period was not invocable in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant with consequential relief, as per law.