9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Builders and Developers. There were three partners in the firm M/s Gauri Ganesha Real Estate and, upon its reconstitution, the new firm M/s Maha Gauri Ganesha Builders and Developers came into existence with effect from 1.4.2007 with two of the above partners continuing (the instrument signifying this change of constitution of partnership firm was titled "Deed of Dissolution of Partnership"). Prior to and after 1.4.2007, the business of the partnership firm was in relation to real estate. The transaction which ultimately led to the present demand of service tax for the period from January 2005 to March 2007 was like this: M/s Gauri Ganesha Real Estate executed agreements with prospective sellers of property and got these agreements regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded period of limitation was invoked without any factual or legal basis. It is further pointed out that the learned Commissioner who adjudicated the show-cause notice refrained from imposing any penalty under Section 78 of the Act on valid grounds and that, on the very same grounds, it should have been held that the extended period of limitation was not invocable. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to stay order No. 1280/2011 dated 22.11.2011 passed by this Bench in appeal No. ST /2045/2011 wherein a prima face case was found for the appellant on the limitation issue. Finally, the learned counsel submits that his clients have financial difficulties and may not be able to make deposit except to the extent of 10% of the service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants did not care to get registered with the department in respect of the above taxable service and also did not file returns. Needless to say that they did not pay service tax on the above 'commission'. They suppressed the relevant facts before the department. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority on the limitation issue also. We have gone through the facts of the case covered by stay order No. 1280/2011 and have found the same to be distinguishable vis-a-vis the facts of the present case. There is no plea of financial hardships in the stay application of Gauri Ganesha Real Estate and the plea of financial hardships raised in the stay application of Maha Gauri Ganesha Builders and Develope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
