Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (9) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the whole case is due to interpretational issue (change of opinion) on the part of the Revenue - it is further found in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the benefit of closure under section 73(3) has been wrongly denied to the appellant assessee, and no show-cause notice was required to be issued. The appellant is entitled to benefit of closure under Section 73(3) the Act - Appeal allowed. - MR ANIL CHOUDHARY MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr Aqeel Sheerji, Adv. for the appellant Mr A. Rangadham, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER The applicant is a Life Insurance Company which have started business from the year 2005. Service tax on life insurance was introduced vide Secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emium collected. Accordingly, there appeared to be a case of short payment of service tax as the appellant had deposited their service tax on the part of the premium relating to risk cover, as certified by the Actuary. Accordingly, Revenue worked out the short payment of service tax for the period 2006-07 till 2010-11 (up to October 2010) and worked out differential duty of Rs. 3,41,82,280/-. 4. In response to the objection of Revenue, being Audit Objection dated 7th December 2010, the appellant sought clarification from their group tax cell and in order to close the issue in a non- litigious manner, reworked the service tax paid on the group insurance policies, and paid the said amount of Rs. 3,41,82,280/- along with interest on 11/12/2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is Tribunal after depositing 25% penalty i.e. Rs 85,45,570/- vide challan dated 16/01/2013. 7. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant Mr Aqeel Sheeraji urges that the appellant had rightly paid the service tax as clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 80/010 dated 17/9/2004, by obtaining the prescribed certificate from the appointed Actuary. No errors have been found in the said certificate issued by the Actuary, and no violation has been alleged in following the directions given in the Board Circular. He also refers to Para 49 of the budget speech of the Finance Minister, wherein it has been clearly stated that- service tax is being imposed on life insurance service to the extent of risk premium. The said inte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only in the year 2010-11, which is wholly due to change in interpretation on the part of the Revenue. There is no element of suppression, fraud, misstatement, etc. made out from the allegations in the show-cause notice. The Revenue have erred in the invocation of extended period of limitation, and also at the same time denying the benefit of closure of dispute under section 73(3)of the Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal with consequential relief. He relied on the decision in the case of CCI Logistics Pvt Ltd VS Commissioner of CGST C.EX Kolkatta North Commissionerate [2021(54)GSTL 27(Trib), wherein it was held that show-cause notice was not required to be issued in view of the provisions of section 73(3) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here being total absence of fraud, suppression, misstatement, etc., and denial of benefit under section 73(3) of the Act, in spite of giving proper information to the Revenue after depositing the tax with interest, prior to issue of show-cause notice. 11. Opposing the appeal, Learned AR for Revenue relies on the impugned order. Learned AR further urges that there is a case of misinterpretation of the Taxing Statue on the part of the appellant. It is further urged that the benefit of closure under section 73(3) have been rightly not given in view of Section 73(4), which provides that nothing contained in sub-section (3) shall apply to a case where any service tax has been short-paid or short-levied by reason of fraud or collusion or willf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates