9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1161 - AT - Service TaxGTA Service - SCN was issue to them invoking extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not? - Held that - In the instant case the SCN does not bring out any fact to sustain the charge of suppression miss-declaration etc. - we are unable to upheld the allegation in support of invoking extended period of limitation in the instant case - appeal allowed on limitation.
Issues Involved:
Confirmation of demand of service tax for Goods Transport Agency service received, applicability of Notification No. 34/2004-ST, invocation of extended period of limitation, comparison with previous judgments, jurisdiction of the notice issued, and the decision on limitation. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand for service tax of Goods Transport Agency service received. The appellant argued that they were availing GTA services at specific prices per consignment and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-ST. They claimed a bonafide belief in their entitlement to the notification's benefit and highlighted the issue's coverage against them in a previous Tribunal decision and a High Court decision. The appellant contested the demand based on the extended period of limitation invoked through the show cause notice. The AR relied on the impugned order. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the issue on merit was indeed covered against the appellant by a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal referenced a High Court decision to emphasize the importance of specific allegations like fraud or willful misstatement for invoking extended limitation periods. The High Court's decision highlighted the necessity of proving deliberate avoidance or evasion to justify extended limitation periods. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice in the present case did not support the charge of suppression or misdeclaration, leading to the conclusion that the extended limitation period was not applicable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of limitation. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 22.06.2018.
|
