2018 (10) TMI 644 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - demands based on Balance Sheet - case of appellant is that they have already paid the service tax and no further demand is maintainable - Held that - The contentions of learned counsel for the appellant as recorded hereinabove are tenable in law - the subject show cause notice dated 11.7.2014 which was issued in extended period of limitation is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Appeal on grounds of willful suppression, demand for service tax based on Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, imposition of penalties, sustainability of show cause notice issued under extended period.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) alleging willful suppression of facts by the appellant. The show cause notice was for the period from April 2010 to June 2012, demanding a sum of ?48,78,461. The appellant contended that they had already paid ?25,60,133 as service tax for the period from April 2012 to June 2012, which was deposited between August 3, 2012, and September 27, 2012. Additionally, a demand of ?21,81,838 for the financial year 2010-2011 and ?1,36,490 based on the Balance Sheet for 2011-2012 was made. The appellant argued that the demands based on the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account were not justifiable, as the transactions were not scrutinized, and the amounts may have already been reflected in the ST-3 returns. They cited a previous Tribunal case to support their argument that a Balance Sheet is a comprehensive financial document that requires detailed investigation before raising demands. The appellant also contended that the show cause notice was not sustainable as it was issued under the extended period despite full disclosure in the ST-3 returns.

The learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the demands made without proper scrutiny of transactions and without verifying if the amounts were already disclosed in the ST-3 returns were unjustified. They referenced a previous Tribunal ruling to support their argument that demands based on Balance Sheet entries require thorough investigation. The appellant highlighted that the ST-3 returns had already shown a service tax liability of ?25,60,133, which was duly paid, and therefore, the demand under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was unwarranted. They further contended that the entire show cause notice was unsustainable, especially the demands based on the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, given the full disclosure in the ST-3 returns.

After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. They held that the show cause notice issued under the extended period was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law. The judgment pronounced in court favored the appellant's position, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed.