9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 86 - AT - Service TaxGoods Transport Agency Service - Bar of limitation - Whether or not demand issued on 18.5.2005 for the period December 1997 to May 1998 in the case of GTA Services is within the period of limitation when read with Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, Section 68 (1) and section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - As per Hon ble High Court of Gujarat decision in the case of CCE & Cus, Vadodara-1 vs. Eimco Elecon Limited (2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) on the same issue, the show cause notice dated 11.11.2004 for the period 16.7.1997 to 02.6.1998 was considered to be time barred. It is observed that Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has passed the observation while holding that no short levy can be demanded from the Respondent in that case even after the retrospective amendment was brought into operation by the Revenue as per amendments carried out in Section 68(1) and Section 73 and addition of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the demand issued on 18.5.2005 for the period December 1997 to May 1998 in the case of GTA Services is within the period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: 1. The appellant contended that the demand is time-barred based on a previous decision by the High Court of Gujarat and judgments from CESTAT Delhi and Bangalore. They argued that the demand should be considered time-barred due to the settled legal position. 2. The Revenue argued that a different High Court decision from Madras set the relevant date for issuing show cause notices as 13.11.2003, and since the appellant did not register or file the required return, the extended period of 5 years applied from that date. 3. The Tribunal considered both arguments and reviewed the case records. As the regular appeal was also being disposed of, the extension application by the appellant was allowed, and the appeal was taken up for disposal. 4. The key issue was whether the show cause notice issued on 18.5.2005 fell within the period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994 for the retrospective amendment. The appellant relied on the Gujarat High Court decision to support their claim that the demand was time-barred. 5. The Tribunal observed the Gujarat High Court's decision and the Delhi CESTAT judgment, emphasizing that demands issued after 2004 for short levies were not maintainable. The Madras High Court's judgment was also discussed, highlighting the importance of timely filing returns and paying taxes. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision and the time-barred nature of the demand. The appeal was allowed based on the established legal precedents and interpretations of the relevant provisions. 7. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, following the legal principles set by the Gujarat High Court and the interpretations of the Finance Act, 1994. This detailed analysis covers the arguments presented, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision based on the issues involved in the judgment.
|
