2017 (3) TMI 377 - AT - Service Tax

Self / suo-moto adjustment of excess service tax paid - time bar - Works contract service - Held that - the appellant has given the details of the adjustments made by them. The letter dated 30.06.2009 reveals that the appellants had properly intimated that they had paid excess service tax and the same is adjusted for subsequent period. The only irregularity raised is that they did not intimate before adjustment - The facts do not reveal any suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - demand is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjustment of excess paid service tax against other taxable services.
2. Validity of demand for service tax, interest, and penalty.
3. Time limitation for issuing Show Cause Notice.
4. Allegations of suppression of facts by the appellant.

Analysis:

Adjustment of Excess Paid Service Tax:
The appellants were engaged in providing services and had paid excess service tax on services rendered to HMWSS Board, Hyderabad, which was an exempted service. They adjusted the excess paid service tax against their other taxable services for a subsequent period. The department contended that such adjustment was against the law and demanded the excess amount of service tax. The appellants argued that they had intimated the adjustment to the department before making it and that the demand was time-barred.

Validity of Demand for Service Tax, Interest, and Penalty:
The original authority confirmed the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the decision. The main contention was whether the demand for the excess service tax was legal and proper. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as they had intimated the adjustment to the department before making it, while the department contended that the adjustment was against the law.

Time Limitation for Issuing Show Cause Notice:
The appellants argued that the Show Cause Notice issued after a delay of more than two years was time-barred. They had informed the department about the adjustment made by them before the notice was issued. The appellate tribunal found that the appellants had intimated the adjustment properly and that there was no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demand was held to be time-barred.

Allegations of Suppression of Facts:
The appellate tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to establish that the appellants were guilty of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The tribunal found that the appellants had properly intimated the adjustment of excess service tax to the department, and there was no intent to evade payment of duty. As a result, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.