9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred 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. - SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 52 of 2012-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. A/12225/2022 - Dated:- 21-12-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Krutesh Patel, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Tara Prakash, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER The issue involved in the present case is that whether the demand of service tax raised against the appellant M/s. Gujarat Engineering Research is not maintainable on the ground of time-bar or otherwise. 2. Shri Krutesh Patel, learned Chartered Accountant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 03.01.2019 held that the demand is time-barred and appeal was allowed on limitation. The said order is reproduced below:- 4 . On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the record, we find that without going into merits, the appeals can be disposed of on limitation itself. We find that there is no dispute that the appellant are a part of the Government of Gujarat, providing services of Technical Testing and Analysis to the other departments of the same Government of Gujarat. Being a Government organization, the suppression of facts, mis-declaration, fraud, collusion, willful mis-declaration etc. cannot be alleged against the appellant for the reason that there is no individual‟s interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no question of law warranting its admission would arise. Dismissed . In the case of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited (supra), this Tribunal on the issue of limitation has held as under :- 4. . .. However, since the respondent are a Public Sector Undertaking, the longer limitation period for demand of non-paid service tax under proviso to Section 73(1) would not be invocable, as in the circumstances of the case, the allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of the Rules to evade the payment of service tax, cannot be made against the respondent. Therefore the service tax demand would be confined only to normal limitation period. In view of the circumstances of the case, the penalty also has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evade payments of service tax. On the similar issue, in the case of Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corpn. Limited, this Tribunal passed the following order:- 5. We also further note that the? appellant is a public sector undertaking, being a State Govt. enterprise, in such a case allegation of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or deliberate contravention of Rule with an intention to evade the duty payment cannot be made. Tribunal has observed the same in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. [2014 (36) S.T.R. 554 (Tri.-Del.)]. 6. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the extended period is not available to the Revenue. However, a part of the demand falls within the limited period, which would be re-q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
