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

2025 (1) TMI 1374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the invocation of extended period of limitation, it is found that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that though there was no intention to evade the payment of service tax, still suppression on their part satisfies one of the ingredients of Section 73 of the Act. The finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is self-contradictory because the "suppression" and for that matter other ingredients in Section 73 of the Act are qualified by the phrase "with intent to evade payment of tax", therefore, if there is no intention to evade payment of tax, then the charge of suppression is not sustainable in law. The issue involved in the present c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005, was not available to them. The appellant were also advised by the jurisdictional Range Office to get themselves registered with the department and discharge their service tax liability vide letters dated 16.06.2009, 22.07.2009, 27.09.2010 and 05.01.2011, but they neither deposited the service tax nor got themselves registered. Accordingly, the department issued a show cause notice to the appellant proposing a demand of Rs.1,28,702/- under proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (in short "the Act") alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act; penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Act were also proposed. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the dema .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er submits that the appellant were entitled to take benefit under Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, which exempts Commercial Training and Coaching which forms an essential part of a course of another institute which issues a diploma/certificate recognized by law, form the payment of service tax. He further submits that part of the charges collected were passed on to PIL which satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. He also submits that similarly placed institute namely Euro Star Computers, Nawan Shahar, which also fell under the same jurisdiction of the same Range Office, was refused registration on the ground that service in question was exempted under Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... themselves registered and pay the service tax and file the returns, therefore, the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked against the appellant. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record. As regards the findings on merit returned by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) supported with relevant notification and the case-laws, we do not find any infirmity in the same; but as regards the invocation of extended period of limitation, we find that the demand has been confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that though there was no intention to evade the payment of service tax, still suppression on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty Infotech Parks Ltd vs. Union of India - 2014 (36) STR 37 (Cal.), wherein the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has observed as under: "92. When a notice is issued in support of transactions spread over a period of time and it is found that the extended period of invocation has been invoked, the notice cannot be treated as within limitation for some of the same transaction, once it is found that the extended period of limitation is not invocable. This proposition find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Alcobex Metals reported in (2003) 4SCC 630=2003 (153) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)." The said judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s R.S. Fin .....

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