2019 (5) TMI 590 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - suppression of facts or not - demand of service tax on repair and maintenance of computer UPS, computer systems and computer peripherals for the period 2003 - HELD THAT - The appellant had not suo-moto disclosed their intention of not paying the service on the belief that the activity is not taxable to the department. It is only when the department started inquiry by writing letter dated 30/09/2004, the appellant responded that the service is not taxable, therefore, before initiation of the inquiry, the appellant has never disclosed the fact that they do not intend to pay service tax on their bonafide belief therefore, the fact which was digged out by the Revenue, shows that the appellant have not disclosed the fact and they have suppressed the facts. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Demand of service tax on repair and maintenance of computer UPS, systems, and peripherals for the period 2003. The issue of time bar regarding the demand.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the demand of service tax on repair and maintenance services provided for computer peripherals during the period of 2003. Initially, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand citing time bar. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision, leading to the matter being remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merit. The central issue in question was whether the demand dropped by the adjudicating authority due to time limitation was correct.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that they genuinely believed that the repair and maintenance services for computer peripherals were not taxable during the relevant period. They highlighted instances where they communicated this belief to the department, indicating that they were not intentionally evading tax. The appellant contended that since the department was aware of their stance through various correspondences, the demand should be considered time-barred.

Revenue's Argument:
On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellant had not proactively informed the department about their belief regarding the taxability of the services. They argued that the appellant's failure to disclose this information earlier amounted to a suppression of facts, justifying the invocation of the extended period for demand.

Judgment and Analysis:
After considering both arguments and reviewing the facts, the tribunal found that the appellant had not voluntarily disclosed their intention of not paying service tax based on their belief that the services were not taxable. The tribunal noted that the appellant only communicated their stance when the department initiated an inquiry, indicating a lack of upfront disclosure. In contrast to the judgments cited by the appellant's counsel, where the assessees had informed the department beforehand, the tribunal concluded that there was a clear suppression of facts on the part of the appellant in this case. Therefore, the demand was not time-barred, and the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the demand was deemed incorrect. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter for a decision on merit, allowing the appellant to pursue the case further before the adjudicating authority. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and transparent communication with tax authorities to avoid allegations of suppression of facts and uphold tax compliance obligations.