Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 841 - AT - Service TaxLiability to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism - no deliberate intent to evade - suppression of facts or not - invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The non-payment of tax was detected during the audit of the records of the appellant. This evidences the fact that the appellant was registered and was filing his returns with the department. It is noted that the impugned order has held that as the appellant did not inform the department regarding the remittances made in convertible foreign currencies to their service provider, and had suppressed the correct nature of the taxable service provided by them with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Such a finding recorded that suppression of facts is enough to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act and there is no necessity of any intent to evade payment of service tax, is against the well settled principles. Even if one assumes that there was suppression, it has to be examined whether suppression was wilful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. The Hon ble Supreme Court in in Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay 1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT has held that suppression of facts has to be wilful‟ and there should also be an intent to evade payment of service tax. It is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to wilful suppression - The Department has not been able to establish any positive act of the appellant with an intent to evade. As that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellant not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty, it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the manner indicated in proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that mere suppression of facts is not enough and there must be a deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any intention to evade payment of service tax, which intention should be evident from the materials on record or from the conduct of the appellant, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation. 3. Allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. 4. Eligibility for Cenvat credit and revenue neutrality. Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability to Pay Service Tax Under the Reverse Charge Mechanism: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, was alleged to have failed to pay service tax on services imported during 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. The department claimed a service tax liability of Rs. 4,49,046/- under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that services such as exhibition, advertisement, research and development, and consultancy were provided and consumed outside India, thus not attracting service tax. However, the tribunal found that the services related to research and development and consultancy were for commercial activities in India, making them liable for service tax under RCM. 2. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation: The department issued a show cause notice on 20.01.2016, invoking the extended period of limitation for the demand. The appellant argued that the entire demand fell under the extended period and was based on a bona fide belief that no tax was payable since services were consumed outside India. The tribunal noted that the transactions were recorded in the appellant's financial statements and the non-payment was detected during an audit, indicating no intent to suppress facts. The tribunal emphasized that mere non-disclosure does not equate to suppression unless it is deliberate and with intent to evade tax, referencing Supreme Court judgments that suppression must be "wilful" and with intent to evade payment. 3. Allegation of Suppression of Facts with Intent to Evade Tax: The department alleged the appellant suppressed facts by not informing about the remittances made in foreign currency for taxable services. The tribunal highlighted that suppression, as per legal precedents, requires a deliberate act with intent to evade tax. The tribunal found no evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade, as the transactions were part of audited financial records and the appellant was under a bona fide belief regarding tax liability. The tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the absence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade. 4. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit and Revenue Neutrality: The appellant claimed eligibility for Cenvat credit on the demanded tax, arguing that the situation was revenue-neutral. The tribunal acknowledged this claim, noting that the appellant was eligible for Cenvat credit as the services were input services. The tribunal referenced decisions where demands were dropped on grounds of revenue neutrality, reinforcing the appellant's position. The tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order was influenced by the recognition of revenue neutrality and the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit. Conclusion: The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. It concluded that the appellant was liable for service tax under RCM for services consumed in India but found no grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation due to lack of wilful suppression or intent to evade tax. The tribunal also recognized the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit, leading to a revenue-neutral situation.
|