Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 595 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTExtended period of limitation - assessee stopped payment of service tax in the pretext of seeking clarification from the Commissioner - Held that:- The order of the Commissioner is well reasoned and discussed. It has analyzed the facts threadbare arriving at the conclusion that the mere seeking of a clarification from the Board cannot be sufficient justification to withhold payment of service tax. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Commissioner further arrived at the finding that after the clarification by the Board, the Respondent has in fact paid the service tax, but partially only. The Commissioner further arrived at the finding that the plea for seeking clarification from the Board could not be a valid justification for the Respondent to take advantage of their own wrong by now invoking the plea of limitation. The Commissioner has further arrived at a finding of fact from the documents produced by the transporters and also submitted by the Respondent that the transport challans fulfilled all the requirements of the consignment note and that there may have been some additional information in it for the sake of convenience would not take the basic character of a consignment note fulfilled. The Tribunal, without any discussion of these findings arrived at by the Commissioner, by a cryptic conclusion has held that in absence of any consignment note actually having been issued, no liability of service tax arises. The question in the facts of the case is that once liability has been admitted by the Respondent, can technicalities justify non-compliance with the law when there is no substantive defence. - Case remanded back to tribunal for a fresh decision - Decided against the revenue.
|