2015 (9) TMI 787 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - assessee has charged service tax on invoice raised only to those clients who agreed to pay service tax - Held that - Revenue authority cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, when the records of the assessee were audited by the officers once but did not find any short payment from records. The 2nd audit party, doing the audit of same period or over lapping period, cannot allege that appellant has miss-stated (sic) or suppressed the facts from the departments - Decision in the case of Rajkumar Forge Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 796 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's failure to obtain registration and pay service tax on services rendered.
2. Alleged suppression of facts to evade service tax payment.
3. Invocation of extended period for demanding service tax.
4. Appellant's compliance with tax liabilities and subsequent audit discrepancies.
5. Applicability of limitation period for invoking extended period.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants providing 'installation and Commissioning of Plant and Equipment' services without obtaining registration or paying service tax. The audit revealed their awareness of tax liability but failure to disclose it, leading to a demand notice for recovery of service tax, interest, and penalties.

2. Adjudicating authorities confirmed the demands but dropped certain claims based on limitation. The appellant's appeal was rejected, leading to a contention on the limitation period being raised during subsequent audits.

3. The appellant argued that the extended period was incorrectly invoked as they had already paid the tax liability and filed returns, citing a judgment from the High Court of Karnataka. The Departmental Representative defended the extended period invocation due to the appellant's failure to pay tax on the entire amount received.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and noted the appellant's compliance with tax liabilities for certain periods. The Revenue claimed undervaluation of services, leading to the demand for service tax liability. The dispute centered on discrepancies found during the second audit despite no issues raised in the initial audit.

5. The Tribunal considered the invocation of the extended period for demanding service tax and referenced judgments from the High Courts of Bombay and Karnataka. It concluded that the demand was beyond the limitation period, setting aside the demands, interest, and penalties imposed. The appeal was allowed solely on the ground of limitation, without delving into other points raised by both sides.