9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1051 - AT - Service TaxTime Limitation - demand of service tax raised against the appellant M/s. Gujarat Engineering Research - HELD THAT - In the present case the demand of service tax pertains to the period March/July 2007, 2003 to May 2007 and the show cause notice was issued on 11.01.2009. Therefore, the entire demand is under the extended period of limitation. This Tribunal, considering the status of the appellant and facts of the case which are absolutely identical to the facts of present case, vide order No. A/10270-10271/2019 dated 03.01.2019 2019 (2) TMI 1303 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD held that the demand is time-barred and appeal was allowed on limitation. The demand raised in the present case for extended period is not maintainable on the ground of limitation itself - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Whether the demand of service tax against the appellant is time-barred or not. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the issue of the maintainability of a service tax demand against the appellant, M/s. Gujarat Engineering Research, on the grounds of time-bar. The appellant's representative, a Chartered Accountant, argued that a previous Tribunal decision in the appellant's own case had held that demands for an extended period were not sustainable. The representative cited several decisions to support this argument. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner for Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the demand of service tax pertained to a period falling under the extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's own case where it was held that as a Government organization providing services to other government departments, there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. The Tribunal cited various judgments and decisions to support the view that malafide intention cannot be alleged against a Government Agency in cases of non-payment of duty or tax. The Tribunal highlighted specific cases where similar issues were addressed, such as the case of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited and Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. In these cases, it was established that demands for extended periods were not sustainable due to the absence of malafide intention to evade tax. The Tribunal also referred to a case involving Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, where similar findings were upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan. Based on the consistent view taken by High Courts and Tribunals in cases involving Government Agencies and the absence of malafide intention, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals on limitation grounds only, without delving into the merits of the case. The judgment emphasized that the demand for the extended period was not maintainable on the ground of limitation, and the appeal was allowed accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision rested on the principle that in cases involving Government Agencies providing services to other government departments, malafide intention to evade tax cannot be alleged. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of relevant precedents and legal principles to support the finding that the demand for the extended period was time-barred in this particular case.
|
