Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 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 soon

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2018 (2) TMI 23 - HC - Service Tax


  1. 2024 (11) TMI 408 - HC
  2. 2023 (4) TMI 216 - HC
  3. 2023 (3) TMI 1276 - HC
  4. 2023 (2) TMI 613 - HC
  5. 2022 (9) TMI 903 - HC
  6. 2019 (11) TMI 1207 - HC
  7. 2025 (6) TMI 1260 - AT
  8. 2025 (6) TMI 520 - AT
  9. 2025 (6) TMI 14 - AT
  10. 2025 (5) TMI 2163 - AT
  11. 2025 (5) TMI 406 - AT
  12. 2025 (4) TMI 1393 - AT
  13. 2025 (4) TMI 1115 - AT
  14. 2025 (4) TMI 881 - AT
  15. 2025 (4) TMI 245 - AT
  16. 2025 (4) TMI 175 - AT
  17. 2025 (2) TMI 804 - AT
  18. 2025 (2) TMI 741 - AT
  19. 2025 (1) TMI 1441 - AT
  20. 2025 (1) TMI 543 - AT
  21. 2024 (12) TMI 675 - AT
  22. 2025 (1) TMI 626 - AT
  23. 2024 (12) TMI 352 - AT
  24. 2024 (10) TMI 568 - AT
  25. 2024 (9) TMI 1167 - AT
  26. 2024 (9) TMI 1244 - AT
  27. 2024 (8) TMI 1520 - AT
  28. 2024 (8) TMI 1142 - AT
  29. 2024 (8) TMI 96 - AT
  30. 2024 (8) TMI 95 - AT
  31. 2024 (11) TMI 286 - AT
  32. 2024 (7) TMI 308 - AT
  33. 2024 (6) TMI 1185 - AT
  34. 2024 (5) TMI 1520 - AT
  35. 2024 (4) TMI 818 - AT
  36. 2024 (4) TMI 472 - AT
  37. 2024 (4) TMI 533 - AT
  38. 2024 (2) TMI 1132 - AT
  39. 2024 (2) TMI 1160 - AT
  40. 2024 (1) TMI 777 - AT
  41. 2023 (12) TMI 954 - AT
  42. 2023 (12) TMI 1004 - AT
  43. 2023 (12) TMI 483 - AT
  44. 2023 (12) TMI 9 - AT
  45. 2023 (11) TMI 1080 - AT
  46. 2023 (10) TMI 594 - AT
  47. 2023 (9) TMI 930 - AT
  48. 2023 (8) TMI 1384 - AT
  49. 2023 (8) TMI 849 - AT
  50. 2023 (8) TMI 188 - AT
  51. 2023 (8) TMI 187 - AT
  52. 2023 (7) TMI 258 - AT
  53. 2023 (12) TMI 848 - AT
  54. 2023 (7) TMI 199 - AT
  55. 2023 (6) TMI 1197 - AT
  56. 2023 (5) TMI 657 - AT
  57. 2023 (5) TMI 302 - AT
  58. 2023 (4) TMI 715 - AT
  59. 2023 (4) TMI 435 - AT
  60. 2022 (9) TMI 1159 - AT
  61. 2022 (9) TMI 625 - AT
  62. 2022 (6) TMI 860 - AT
  63. 2022 (2) TMI 1120 - AT
  64. 2021 (9) TMI 897 - AT
  65. 2021 (8) TMI 642 - AT
  66. 2021 (7) TMI 251 - AT
  67. 2021 (5) TMI 869 - AT
  68. 2020 (12) TMI 534 - AT
  69. 2021 (1) TMI 8 - AT
  70. 2020 (11) TMI 582 - AT
  71. 2020 (12) TMI 1096 - AT
  72. 2020 (7) TMI 233 - AT
  73. 2019 (12) TMI 238 - AT
  74. 2020 (7) TMI 384 - AT
  75. 2020 (4) TMI 382 - AT
  76. 2019 (8) TMI 321 - AT
  77. 2019 (4) TMI 589 - AT
  78. 2019 (7) TMI 766 - AT
  79. 2018 (10) TMI 1560 - AT
  80. 2018 (11) TMI 26 - AT
  81. 2018 (7) TMI 1390 - AT
  82. 2018 (7) TMI 994 - AT
  83. 2018 (8) TMI 488 - AT
  84. 2022 (5) TMI 1356 - AAR
The core legal question considered by the Court was whether the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, could be invoked for the recovery of service tax in respect of management, maintenance and repair services and mandap keeper services provided by the appellant. Specifically, the Court examined if the Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalty for non-compliance with service tax provisions.

Another important issue was whether the appellant had wilfully suppressed facts or committed fraud or collusion with intent to evade service tax, thus justifying the extended limitation period and penalties. The Court also considered the applicability of Section 80 of the Finance Act, which provides exemption from penalty if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure.

Further, the Court examined the legal interpretation of terms such as "wilful misstatement" and "suppression of facts" in the context of extended limitation periods, relying on precedents under similar provisions in the Customs Act and Central Excise Act.

Regarding the first issue of limitation period and invocation of the extended period under Section 73(1), the Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions. Section 73(1) provides a one-year limitation period for issuance of a show cause notice for recovery of service tax not levied or short-paid. The proviso extends this to five years if such non-payment is due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade tax.

The Court referred extensively to Supreme Court precedents interpreting analogous provisions under Section 28 of the Customs Act and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. These judgments clarified that for the extended limitation period to apply, there must be proof of deliberate or wilful conduct with intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment or omission does not suffice. The words "wilful misstatement" and "suppression of facts" require a positive act or deliberate omission with intent to evade duty.

In applying this legal framework, the Court found that the appellant had acted under bona fide belief that certain services, particularly mandap keeper services and management, maintenance and repair services, were not liable to service tax during the relevant periods. The appellant relied on a government notification and judicial pronouncements to justify non-payment of service tax on certain components such as food, beverages, liquor, and mineral water included in mandap keeper services.

The appellant had also voluntarily paid service tax with interest during the enquiry period once it became aware of the liability, and amended its registration to comply with tax obligations for management, maintenance and repair services from 2006-07 onwards. The Court noted that the appellant's conduct demonstrated absence of intent to evade tax and no wilful suppression of facts.

The revenue's contention that the appellant, being a large corporate entity, could not claim ignorance or bona fide belief was rejected on the basis that the burden of proving wilful suppression or intent to evade lies on the revenue. The Court emphasized that mere failure to pay service tax or delay does not automatically amount to suppression or fraud warranting extended limitation.

Consequently, the Court held that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) could not be invoked for the periods in question (2004-05 and 2005-06 for mandap keeper services, and 2005-07 for management, maintenance and repair services). The show cause notice issued in 2008 was thus barred by limitation for these periods. However, service tax liability for the year 2007-08 was not time-barred and remained payable.

On the issue of penalty, the Court applied Section 80 of the Finance Act, which precludes penalty if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure. The appellant's bona fide belief, prompt payment of service tax upon awareness, and lack of intent to evade tax constituted reasonable cause. The Court therefore held that penalty could not be imposed.

The Court also scrutinized the allegations in the show cause notice and adjudication orders that the appellant wilfully suppressed material facts, particularly regarding separate invoicing practices, non-inclusion of service charge in taxable value, and non-payment of service tax on certain components. It found that these allegations were not substantiated by evidence of intent to evade tax. The appellant's explanation that it did not recover service tax on service charge as an administrative policy, and that it paid service tax on amounts it considered taxable, was accepted as reasonable.

In sum, the Court concluded that the invocation of the extended limitation period and imposition of penalty were not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant was liable to pay service tax only for the period not barred by limitation (2007-08 for management, maintenance and repair services). The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Significant holdings include the Court's detailed exposition of the interpretation of "wilful misstatement" and "suppression of facts" in the context of extended limitation for tax recovery, relying on binding Supreme Court precedents. The Court emphasized that:

"Mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The proviso contemplates a smaller, specific and more serious niche of cases where there is deliberate intent to evade payment of duty."

Further, the Court stated:

"Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression."

It was also held that the burden of proving wilful suppression or intent to evade tax lies on the revenue and mere allegations in the show cause notice are insufficient.

On penalty, the Court reaffirmed the principle under Section 80 of the Finance Act that no penalty should be imposed if the assessee proves reasonable cause for failure, including bona fide belief and prompt compliance upon knowledge of liability.

Thus, the Court established that in tax recovery proceedings under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, the extended limitation period and penalties can only be invoked upon clear proof of deliberate evasion, not mere omission or delay, and bona fide belief and conduct of the assessee are relevant considerations.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates