Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 106 - AT - Service TaxWaiver of pre-deposit - Extended period of limitation - Real Estate Agent - Suppression of facts - Penalty imposed under Section 76, 77 & 78 - Held that:- Mentioning of different amounts in the first agreement to sale, one attributable to the sale of the land and the other to the nomination charges itself is indicative of the fact that the entire consideration mentioned in the agreement was not towards the value of the land. Further, reducing the sale value to ₹ 4.25 lakhs again raises doubts about the bonafides of the contract. Further, the fact of payment of consideration in the bank account of the appellant's wife, as also a part of the consideration in the appellant's bank account without giving details of the quantum of land owned by the appellant and also by his wife individually or jointly lead to the factual position, that the appellant was procuring the land from the other small land owners and without getting the same registered in his own name, was passing on the same to the developers, is indicative of the absence of bonafides on the part of the assessee. Issue has come to the knowledge of the Revenue by initiation of investigation in 2009 onwards. As per the learned advocate, the investigations which were started in February 2009 were completed in March 2009 and as such the show-cause notice issued in June 2011 has to be held as barred by limitation. Apart from the fact that the appellant did not came forward himself to place all the facts before the service tax authorities, we find no merits in the appellant's plea that the investigations were completed by March 2009. The appellants not being a part of the department, would not be in a position to say, with force, as to the conclusion of the investigations. The non-production of documents post March 2009 is not indicative of the fact that no further investigations were being carried out by the Revenue. Otherwise also, once suppression is attributed to the assessee, longer period of limitation is available to the Revenue. - Decided against assessee.
|