Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1020 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - Extended period of limitation invoked - Suppression of facts - Evasion of tax - Management Consultancy Service - penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 - Held that:- nature of service is purely advisory in nature. All the advices are relating to the financial restructuring relating to business of various clients. It is true that in few cases in addition to advices, certain executor functions have also been carried out. However, ongoing through such agreements, we find that these executor functions have been carried out. We are therefore of the view considered view that main function has been advisory in nature and not execution, execution seems to be incidental to the advisory functions. The appellant was registered as stockbroking service and the audit would confine to the duty payments made relating to stock broking service. In any case audit period and the period under the present show cause notice are different. The demand in the present case is after the audit period. The other contention raised by the appellant is that the Board Circular itself states that a doubt has been raised and under the circumstances extended period cannot be invoked. We have gone through the said order. It appears that a public notice was issued on 18.2.2001 and in response to that certain agencies have represented and it is in that context that the said order was issued to clarify the doubts of such agencies. Appellants have not produced any evidence which indicate that they had such doubt and for they have approached the departmental authorities for clarification about their service tax liability on this aspect. In fact, after issue of the clarification 37-B Order, it was the duty of appellant to pay the tax for the past period (at least normal period) or challenge the order. This itself indicates willful intention to evade service tax. Appellants had not undertaken any registration relating to ‘Management Consultancy Service' and thus suppressed their activity from the departmental and therefore they have contravened the provisions of Service Tax Act and Rules with a willful intention to evade duty. Under the circumstances we consider that they have satisfied the requirements of Section 73 of the Finance Act, and extended period is correctly invoked and are also liable to penalty under Section 76, 77 and78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against assessee.
|