9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Service TaxShort levy or not paid service tax - extended period of limitation - period 2012-13 and 2013-14 - HELD THAT - No such objection of short payment or non-payment of service tax has been raised during the course of audit as pointed out by the ld. Counsel during the course of argument and admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued on 21.04.2017 which is beyond the period of limitation of one year, therefore, the demand cannot be raised against the appellant as there is not suppression on the part of the appellant as audit took place on 02.04.2014 itself. As the show cause notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation of one year, therefore, the demand against the appellant is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Demand of service tax confirmed for 2012-13 and 2013-14 invoking extended period of limitation. Analysis: The appellant challenged the impugned order confirming the service tax demand for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14, citing the issuance of the show cause notice on 21.04.2017 beyond the limitation period, despite no queries raised during the audit on 28.03.2014 and 02.04.2014. The appellant argued that the notice is time-barred. The respondent, however, relied on the Nizam Sugar Factory case, asserting a five-year period for short levy or non-payment of duty. The respondent also contended that the appellant failed to show necessary accounts and income, which surfaced only during the notice issuance. The tribunal considered the audit report from 28.03.2014 and 02.04.2014, noting no objections raised during the audit regarding service tax payment. The tribunal found the show cause notice issued on 21.04.2017 to be beyond the one-year limitation period, holding that the demand could not be sustained due to lack of suppression by the appellant, given the timely audit. The tribunal distinguished the Nizam Sugar Factory case, emphasizing the relevance of audit in determining the invocable period for demands. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the untimely show cause notice issuance. The appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.
|
