Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (12) TMI 352 - AT - Service TaxInvocation of Extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act stipulates that where any service tax has not been levied or paid by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Chapter or the Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax by the person chargeable with the service tax the provisions of the said section shall have effect as if for the word one year the word five years has been substituted. It is correct that section 73 (1) of the Finance Act does not mention that suppression of facts has to be wilful since wilful precedes only misstatement. It has therefore to be seen whether even in the absence of the expression wilful before suppression of facts under section 73(1) of the Finance Act suppression of facts has still to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. The Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have held that suppression of facts has to be wilful and there should also be an intent to evade payment of service tax. In PUSHPAM PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX. BOMBAY 1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court examined whether the Department was justified in initiating proceedings for short levy after the expiry of the normal period of six months by invoking the proviso to section 11A of the Excise Act. The said proviso to pari materials the proviso to section 73(1) of the finance Act. The proviso to section 11A of the Excise Act carved out an exception to the provisions that permitted the Department to reopen proceedings if the levy was short within six months of the relevant date and permitted the Authority to exercise this power within five years from the relevant date under the circumstances mentioned in the proviso one of which was suppression of facts. It would transpire from the aforesaid decision that mere suppression of facts is not enough and there must be a deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any intention to evade payment of service tax which intention should be evident from the materials on record or from the conduct of the assessee the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Thus mere non disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. In THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2023 (7) TMI 196 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that if an assessee bonafide believes that it was correctly discharging duty then merely because the belief is ultimately found to be wrong by a judgment would not render such a belief of the assessee to be malafide. If a dispute relates to interpretation of legal provisions it would be totally unjustified to invoke the extended period of limitation. The Supreme Court further held that in any scheme of self-assessment it is the responsibility of the assessee to determine the liability correctly and this determination is required to be made on the basis of his own judgment and in a bona-fide manner. In the present case all that has been stated in the show cause notice is that the appellant received an amount for the three taxable services and since the appellant did not provide the required documents it suppressed facts from the department with intent to evade payment of service tax - The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no infirmity with the issue of demand as the period of demand was within five years. The appellant had filed a reply to the show cause notice clearly stating that though the show cause notice referred to the search of the premises of M/s. Hans Travel on 04.04.2008 but even earlier on 16.09.2003 the office of M/s. Hans Travel was searched by the officers of the Service Tax Section of Central Excise Division and all the records were ceased for further investigation about the taxable service. The reply also mentions that not only the day to day record of M/s. Hans Travel were scrutinized by the officers of the department but even the financial records were scrutinized. The reply also mentions that no reasons had been stated as to why the facts were suppressed with intention to evade payment of service tax. The reply also mentions that the show cause notice was issued on the basis of entries made in the balance sheet which were available to the department when the search was carried out. The extended period of limitation therefore could not have been invoked. The impugned order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore deserves to be set aside on the sole ground that the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore set aside - Appeal allowed.
|