9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the terms. Therefore, Section 65(105)(zb) of the Finance Act would stand attracted and the assessee is liable to pay service tax. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The facts clearly disclose that the assessee failed to get himself registered with the department and consequently would fall within the scope of suppression and extended period of limitation could be invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee. - C.M.A. No. 1462 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : M/s.K.Jayachandran For the Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion is between October, 2002 and September, 2006. At the relevant point of time, the period within which the show cause notice could have been issued, is one year and beyond that unless there is a clear case of suppression, the extended period of limitation should not be invoked. The admitted fact is that the assessee registered himself with the department in October, 2005 and he has paid service tax for the services rendered by him till September, 2006. This fact has been noted by the First Appellate Authority. After the appellant registered himself under the category photography services, the respondent department conducted an audit and on scrutiny of the Ledger accounts along with Income Tax returns for the period 2002-03 to 2005-06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. The assessee filed further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal after considering factual position has dismissed the appeal insofar as it relates to demand of service tax, but granted relief to the assessee by deleting the penalty. 8. The question would be whether the assessee would fall within the scope of Section 65(105)(zb). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that to come within the tax net, the assessee should be a photography studio and only in case of such a photography studio or an agency in relation to photography, then only it can be termed as a taxable service. 9. We have heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel on the above submissions. Section 65(79) of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to have done, when he was realizing taxable service. Thus, the facts clearly disclose that the assessee failed to get himself registered with the department and consequently would fall within the scope of suppression and extended period of limitation could be invoked. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of GST Vs. C.Kamalakannan [reported in (2018) 18 GSTL 589 (Madras)] dated 23.08.2018, by relying on the said decision, it is submitted that the extended period cannot be invoked by the respondent department. In the said decision, we find that there were two views within the department itself on the taxability of the services and in such an event it was held that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
