Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 116 - CESTAT CHENNAIInvocation of larger period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of FA Act - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the letters/communication, it is found that the appellant seriously contested the chargeability to tax under supply of tangible goods service, but however, only after much persuasion did the assessee pay the tax along with interest. Hence, such payment of tax and interest is certainly not a voluntary act; it is a different matter altogether that the assessee did not collect the Service Tax from its customer. Also, the fact remains that the assessee was aware of the change in law with the introduction of supply of tangible goods service with effect from 2008, when admittedly, a tangible goods is being leased/rented, or given to use, without thereby transferring the right of possession or effective control over the same. If there was any genuine doubt, the only option perhaps was to pay the tax instantly and upon being pointed out, and then seek clarification from a tax expert or the Department. The very fact that the appellant is contesting the issue of invoking larger period of limitation, that the rendering of service under the ‘supply of tangible goods’ is accepted; but for survey, persuasion, etc., by the officials, the tax would have remained unpaid amounting to evasion of duty. The other fact that the rendering of service and the receipt is not shown in the ST-3 return thus clearly amounts to suppression of facts; and hence, it is a clear case of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax payment. There are no justifiable reasons to interfere with the invocation of extended period of limitation and hence, the same is held to be in order - appeal dismissed.
|