2025 (4) TMI 12 - AT - Service Tax

Proper service of SCN - whether in this case the show cause notice was served properly or otherwise in terms of Statutory provisions under the Finance Act? - inovcation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of various suo moto orders of Hon ble Supreme Court during the relevant period would indicate that various relaxations were given in relation to serving of notice statutory limitation etc. due to extra ordinary situation arising due to COVID and these relaxations were not only given to appellant/litigants but also to Government. Thus there was no infirmity in serving of notice during the relevant period through e-mail and that defence would not sustain. The ground taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) to uphold the invocation of extended period is not based on correct evaluation of facts of the case and therefore not legally tenable. In view of the same it is held that invocation of extended period for demand as upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned order is legal and proper and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of sustaining the invocation of extended period is set aside. Further since the entire demand is admittedly beyond the normal period the entire demand of Rs. 3, 51, 750/- is bound to fail as also the penalty under Section 78 is liable to be set aside. Therefore the impugned order is modified to that extent accordingly. Conclusion - There is no infirmity in serving of notice during the relevant period through e-mail and that defence would not sustain. The demand of Rs. 3, 51, 750/- and the penalty under Section 78 set aside due to the improper invocation of the extended period. Appeal allowed in part.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment were:

Whether the service of the show cause notice via e-mail was valid under the statutory provisions of the Finance Act.
Whether the invocation of the extended period for demand under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was justified.
Whether the demand based solely on Income Tax Returns, without independent verification of the nature of services, was sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Service of Show Cause Notice via E-mail

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant argued that under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, the prescribed modes of service do not include e-mail. However, the respondent cited a suo moto order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing service via e-mail during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that during the relevant period, the Supreme Court's orders permitted service of notices via e-mail due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. Therefore, the service of the show cause notice via e-mail was deemed valid.
Conclusion: The defense challenging the validity of e-mail service was not sustained.

Invocation of Extended Period for Demand

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, can be invoked in cases of suppression of facts, willful misstatement, or fraud.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not registered for service tax and had not filed returns. The demand was based solely on Income Tax Returns without evidence of deliberate suppression or misstatement.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the original demand was made based on Income Tax data without substantive evidence of intent to evade tax.
Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not legally tenable, and the order upholding it was set aside.

Demand Based on Income Tax Returns

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant contended that the demand could not be based solely on Income Tax Returns without verifying the nature of services under Section 65 of the Finance Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail, as the demand was set aside due to the limitation issue.
Conclusion: The issue was not further analyzed due to the setting aside of the demand on limitation grounds.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced that during extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, procedural relaxations, including service via e-mail, are permissible as per the Supreme Court's orders.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 3,51,750/- and the penalty under Section 78 due to the improper invocation of the extended period. The service of the show cause notice via e-mail was upheld as valid.
Verbatim Quotes: "Thus, there was no infirmity in serving of notice during the relevant period through e-mail and that defence would not sustain."

← Previous Next →