9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 342 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - supply of food and beverages along with accommodation services - HELD THAT - From the various decisions of different High Courts one thing is clear that the issue of constitutionality of levying service tax on food and beverages by the Parliament was a matter of interpretation. Batch of writ petitions were filed in the year 2011 before the Kerala High Court and the decision of the Single Judge was rendered on July 3 2013 and affirmed by the Division Bench on October 21 2014. Thus during the relevant period the controversy was sub-judice and the benefit of the same should go to the appellant. At the same time the appellant had submitted its justification in respect of the service tax liability on other counts. The Department thereafter kept quiet and after a long delay of almost 16 months once again sent a communication dated June 17 2015 calling upon the appellant to submit month-wise details towards amount charged on room service and mandap keeper service and abatement claimed thereon for payment of service tax for the period April 2013 to March 2015 and in respect of Mini Bar Sale for the period October 2013 to March 2015. The said communication is nothing but a deliberate attempt to create a cause for invocation of the extended period of limitation as the information sought for has no correlation with the period involved in the present case i.e. April 2011 to September 2013. There is no justification for the Department to sit over after the communication dated February 21 2014 was made by the appellant. In the circumstances there is no suppression by the appellant so as to evade payment of service tax. In the case of P.P. Jewellers Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax CGST Commissionerate New Delhi 2025 (4) TMI 175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI this Bench has considered the applicability of the extended period of limitation in similar circumstance where the assessee fully co-operated in submitting all the documents and explaining the transactions with respect to their different units. In the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd versus Union of India Ors. 2023 (4) TMI 216 - DELHI HIGH COURT the Delhi High Court observed that merely because MTNL had not declared the receipt of compensation as payment for taxable service does not establish that it had wilfully suppressed any material fact and therefore no intent to avoid tax can be inferred by non- disclosure of the receipt in the service tax returns. The Madras High Court in Commissioner of C.EX. Chennai III versus Supreme Industries Ltd. 2014 (1) TMI 1338 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had emphasized that the authorities are bound to record a prima facie finding about intent to evade payment of duty by suppressing the material facts or by making wilful misstatement or by committing fraud or collusion. The show cause notice is time barred and there is no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation in the facts of the present case. Since the issue of limitation has been decided in favour of the appellant it is not necessary for us to consider the issue on merits. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed.
1. The principal issues considered by the Tribunal in this appeal were:
2. Issue-wise detailed analysis: Issue 1: Validity of service tax on supply of food and beverages along with accommodation services The appellant contested the demand on the ground that service tax on serving food and beverages was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, relying on Kerala High Court decisions which held that such transactions fell under Entry 54 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, thus within exclusive State Legislature jurisdiction. The appellant relied on the Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Association case, where the Single Judge and Division Bench upheld this view. The Department relied on contrary decisions of the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, which upheld the validity of service tax on supply of food and beverages in restaurants under the Finance Act provisions, holding that Parliament was competent to levy such tax. The Delhi High Court in Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association case and Bombay High Court in Indian Hotels & Restaurant Association case took this view. The Tribunal noted the existence of divergent judicial opinions on this constitutional question and that appeals against these conflicting High Court judgments were pending before the Supreme Court. Given this pendency and conflicting views, the Tribunal recognized the issue as sub-judice and contentious. Issue 2: Applicability of extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notice The show cause notice dated March 15, 2016 covered the period April 2011 to September 2013. The appellant argued that the normal limitation period of 12 to 18 months had expired, relying on the dates of filing ST-3 returns and statutory limitation provisions prevailing during the relevant period. The appellant contended that the extended period could not be invoked as the delay was attributable to bona fide belief arising from the pendency of writ petitions before Kerala High Court, creating confusion regarding taxability of food and beverages. The Department contended that the appellant wilfully suppressed facts with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation. It relied on a Tribunal decision in Warsi Buildcon, where extended limitation was upheld due to deliberate suppression. The Tribunal examined the timeline and facts: the appellant promptly responded to audit objections in February 2014, paid tax on certain categories, and submitted justifications for others. The Department delayed further communication until June 2015, seeking details unrelated to the period under scrutiny, which the Tribunal viewed as a deliberate attempt to create a pretext for extended limitation. The Tribunal found no suppression by the appellant and noted that all transactional details were recorded in statutory books and available to the Department. The Tribunal extensively referred to binding precedents, including Supreme Court rulings in Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Pushpam Pharmaceuticals, Easland Combines, and Uniworth Textiles, which require "something positive" beyond mere delay or omission to invoke extended limitation, such as deliberate withholding of information or fraud. It also cited decisions emphasizing that "mere omission to give correct information is not suppression unless deliberate with intent to evade tax." Further, the Tribunal relied on recent decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including P.P. Jewellers, Bharat Hotels Ltd., Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., and Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd., which held that extended limitation cannot be invoked without prima facie findings of fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant cooperated fully, disclosed all relevant facts, and paid tax with interest, negating any wilful suppression. Issue 3: Wilful suppression and intent to evade tax The Tribunal found that the appellant maintained proper records (ledger accounts, balance sheets, trial balances) disclosing all transactions. The Adjudicating Authority itself reduced penalty under Section 78 by 50% acknowledging the disclosure. The Tribunal concluded that there was no wilful intent or fraudulent suppression by the appellant. The appellant's conduct in promptly responding to audit queries and paying tax on certain demands further negated any mens rea for evasion. Issue 4: Penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 Given the findings on limitation and absence of wilful suppression or fraud, the Tribunal impliedly held that penalty imposition was not justified. The Commissioner had already dropped penalty under Section 77, and the Tribunal's findings on cooperation and disclosure further supported waiver of penalty under Section 80. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide penalty issues as the limitation issue was dispositive. 3. Significant holdings and core principles: "The issue of constitutionality of levying service tax on food and beverages by the Parliament was a matter of interpretation. Batch of writ petitions were filed in the year 2011 before the Kerala High Court and the decision of the Single Judge was rendered on July 3, 2013 and affirmed by the Division Bench on October 21, 2014. Thus, during the relevant period the controversy was sub-judice and the benefit of the same should go to the appellant." "The appellant was called upon by the Department vide letter dated February 18, 2014 to submit their response and the appellant not only promptly replied to the same by their letter dated February 21, 2014 but also paid the service tax on certain categories. The Department thereafter kept quiet and after a long delay of almost 16 months, once again sent a communication dated June 17, 2015... The said communication is nothing but a deliberate attempt to create a cause for invocation of the extended period of limitation." "There is no justification for the Department to sit over, after the communication dated February 21, 2014 was made by the appellant. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no suppression by the appellant so as to evade payment of service tax." "The authorities are bound to record a prima facie finding about intent to evade payment of duty by suppressing the material facts or by making wilful misstatement or by committing fraud or collusion... In the absence of any such specific allegation in the show cause notice, the authorities cannot mechanically impose penalty." "Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts, unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty." "Where facts were known to both the parties... it was not open to come to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of suppression of facts." "Applying the ratio of the aforementioned decisions... the conduct of the appellant in fully cooperating with the department and submitting all the requisite documents... the show cause notice could have been issued within the normal period... it cannot be said that the facts were not known to the Department." Final determination: The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period was time barred as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of wilful suppression or fraud. Since the limitation issue was determinative, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the service tax demand. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order confirming demand, interest, and penalty was set aside.
|
