9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. This being so, there can be no demand on the appellant on WCS provided by him prior to 01-06-2007 and even by treating such services as CICS. The show cause notice itself acknowledges that ST-3 returns have been filed by the appellant. It also takes cognizance of the fact that the appellants had approached the A.P. High Court with regard to dispute to nature of service provided by them. This being so, it is patently incorrect for the department to allege in the said show cause notice, wilful suppression of facts. In consequence, invocation of extended period in the show cause notice is not justifiable and the demand of tax will have to be limited to the normal period of one year computed from the date of servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 20-10-2011 was issued proposing demand of (i) service tax amount of ₹ 1,08,308/- payable on the taxable service of Commercial or industrial construction service for the period upto 31-05-2007 (ii) service tax amount of ₹ 5,78,939/- payable on taxable service of Works Contract service for the period 01-06-2007 to 31-03-2011 along with interest thereof and imposition of penalties. The notice was adjudicated and lower authority, vide Order-in-Original dated 23-10-2012 confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. The above appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 17-09-2013, as barred by limitation of time. On appeal, the Order-in-Appeal was set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax. In fact, the appellant through their society challenged the new levy by way of filing writ petition No. 28470/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the said writ petition is still pending. The same fact also conveyed to the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad vice his letter dated 29-09-2008, wherein, the appellant disclosed turnover details from 10-09-2004 to 31-03-2008 and explained his case. The said fact was also recorded in the statement deposed on 25-08-2009 before the Assistant Commissioner. 3.4 Having acknowledged the letter on 30-09-2008, the authorities advised to register and file ST-3 returns. Accordingly, the appellant filed ST-3 returns from time to time. These facts were also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound ₹ 3,34,702/- and not ₹ 6,87,247/- as alleged in the notice. 4. The learned AR Sri. S. Reddy vigorously opposed the appeal and contended that as the appellant failed to take registration and suppressed facts, the invocation of extended period is correct and proper. However he fairly conceded that in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Larsen Toubro case, the liability on Works Contract Services would arise only w.e.f 01-06-2007. 5. We have heard both sides and have perused the records. 6. The Show cause notice is seen issued to the appellant on 20-10-2011 ant the appellant contends to have received it on 01-11-2011. The department has not adduced any evidence to establish the contrary. The notice seeks t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice, wilful suppression of facts. In consequence, invocation of extended period in the show cause notice is not justifiable and the demand of tax will have to be limited to the normal period of one year computed from the date of service of notice which the appellant has claimed to be 01-11-2011. iii) The appellant has contended that rate of service tax on WCS has been computed wrongly at 4% instead of 2% from 01-06-2007 to 20-08-2008; that demand has ignored and not taken into account that their abated value of turn over during impugned period was below threshold limit of taxability. 8. In the circumstances, we hold that the demand in show cause notice beyond the normal period is unsustainable being barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
