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


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

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (8) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, CGO Complex II, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the notice has been issued arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, and time-barred, against the provisions of law and illegal. The petitioner has also prayed for writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that activity levelling of soil including filling of gorges/ nallah, removing of shrubs, grass and rubbish from the area are not liable to service tax under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice alleges, on the basis of specific intelligence gathered by the Revenue that the petitioner is engaged in providing various services to M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondents thereafter contacted M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., who provided to them vide letter dated February 17, 2010, the copy of the work order dated June 17, 2006 given to the petitioner for their project Sahara City Homes, Amritsar , the cost of which was ₹ 6,08,49,000. They also supplied copies of the bill raised by the petitioner to the same amount and payment details. On this information which the Department found to have been suppressed by the petitioners, summons were issued to the petitioner on which one Shri Jitendra Kumar appeared on March 9, 2011 and recorded his statement under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He introduced himself as senior manager of the petitioner and claimed exemption .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the said period, the value of taxable service had escaped assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner registered under the Act is truthfully disclosing all the relevant facts. The balance sheet, profit and loss accounts as well as the ledger were produced for the relevant period from which the Department could have easily discovered the amount which according to them have escaped the assessment of tax. Shri Mittal states that the extension of limitation is permissible only when there is deliberate suppression with intention to evade payment of tax. He relies upon the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. [2010] 5 GSTR 543 (SC); [2010] 26 ELT 17 (SC) in which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 16. In our view, on a reading of the relevant provision the extended period of limitation as provided by the proviso to section 11A(1) of the Act, can only be invoked when there is a conscious act of either fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of fact, or contravention of the provisions of the Act or any of the Rules made thereunder on the part of the person chargeable with duty or his agent, with the intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, the Tribunal while considering this issue has not stated whether or not there were any such circumstances which would not allow the Revenue to invoke the extended period of limitation. It only observes in its order since both the assessees are situated under the jurisdictio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... particular contract has not disclosed, even if the stand of the petitioner is that activity was not taxable, it cannot be said that the petitioner had disclosed all the relevant information and that such an act will not fall within the purview of the word suppression used in proviso to section 11A. Further we prima facie find that the activity undertaken by the petitioner for M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., was not exempt under section 65(97a), as working on the land recorded as agricultural land by itself cannot be treated to be service provided in relation to agriculture. There is no averment in the pleading nor there is any such stand taken by the petitioner that M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., was engage .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates