TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The appellant-Revenue authorities initially directed the respondent-NRSA to obtain registration under the three categories which was duly adhered to by obtaining registration on 14.02.2005. Upon obtaining registration, the appellant-Revenue saddled the respondent-NRSA with the show cause notice for the period prior to registration by invoking the provisions of Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act. To justify the action of invocation of extended period of limitation, it has been stated that since, the respondent has been rendering taxable service and failed to observe statutory provisions for registration and payment of service tax, there was suppression of material fact - the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case and the demand if any, can only be survived within the normal period of limitation. There is no incentive for the respondent-NRSA to resort to evasion of tax which could result either in the profits soaring higher or any individual being benefited. On the other hand if there existed a liability, the respondent could have factored the same in its budget proposals and sought for release of more funds from the Government t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to willful suppression with an intent to evade payment of service tax and thus the extended period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked and (b) since, there is no evidence of willful suppression of facts, provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 can be invoked to waive the penalties imposed. 5. The Respondent / assessee National Remote Sensing Agency (for short NRSA ) is an autonomous body under the Department of Space and Research. The respondent is an organization established with the object of capturing Satellite Data Reception, Processing, Dissemination and application of Satellite Data in harnessing natural resources and also supporting various agencies of Government which are involved in launching of Satellite like ISRO and other Space centres concerned with designing of Satellite launch vehicles by receiving data from the Satellites launch, processing and disseminating the same to the user agency including Defence establishments on behalf of the Government of India. 6. It is on record that authorities of Revenue directed the respondent NRSA to obtain registration in respect of the three services viz., (1) photography ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , with regard to the other activities undertaken by the respondent which are sought to be classified under the category of scientific or technical consultancy services, it was contended that the activity of collection of data processing and supplying the same to various user agencies of the Government relating to Geological, Geophysical, Prospecting surface, sub-surface or Aerial surveying or mapping of the earth, cannot be considered as providing advice, technical consultancy or assistance service. On the other hand, it is contended that the activity undertaken by the respondent-NRSA is in the nature of survey and map making. 11. It also contended that various projects or jobs which are entrusted to it by various departments of Central and State Governments involve survey and map making which information provided by the respondent is further processed and used by the said Government agencies; that the scope of the work under various job orders given is composite in nature with the primary object of the survey, map making of the earth surface or subsurface, Reception, Processing, Dissemination and application of Satellite Data and the same cannot be vivisected to apply different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period in dispute; invocation of extended period of limitation; and imposition of penalties. Both the appeals filed by the appellant and the respondent-NRSA were taken up for hearing together and disposed of by the Tribunal by its common order dt. 24.06.2020. 15. The Tribunal, by its common order dt. 24.06.2020, held that- the respondent is liable to pay service tax under the category of photography services and scientific or technical consultancy services; that having regard to the fact that the respondent-NRSA is a Governmental organization run by Bureaucrats and Scientists, none of whom have any personal interest in evading service tax, it cannot be concluded that the respondent had committed fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to payment of evade service of tax. Thus, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for the normal period of limitation would only survive. In so far as imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal also held that there is no evidence of willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax, and it is a fit cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n urged by the respondent-NRSA, that the activity carried on by the respondent would be classifiable as a service covered by Section 65(104)(b) being a taxable service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzc) of the Finance Act, 1994, liable to service tax, if at all, only w.e.f 16.06.2005 and no service tax can be demanded by classifying the activity under the heads of i) photography service, and ii) scientific and technical consultancy service. However, there is neither a discussion nor a finding recorded by the Tribunal on the primary contention raised by the respondent-NRSA. On the other hand, the Tribunal proceeded to consider as to whether the demand of service tax under the heads of photography service, scientific and technical service can be sustained and also as to invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty. 22. Having said so, the only issue which this Court is now required to consider is as to whether the respondent-NRSA had any intent to evade service tax on its activities during the period 16.07.2001 to 31.03.2005 and on advances received during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2005, justifying the action of the appellant-Revenue invoking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department regarding taxability of their services. In this factual matrix, by no stretch of imagination can we hold that the assessee has committed fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts can intend to evade payment of service tax . 25. By observing as above, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case and the demand if any, can only be survived within the normal period of limitation. 26. The finding as recorded by the Tribunal, in our view, is justified, for the reason that, though the respondent is established as an autonomous body, the same for all purposes like administrative control, its financial needs etc., looks only to the Government. This is on account of the fact the services of the respondent are utilized for functioning of various Government agencies under different Ministries and is not run like a private commercial organization with a profit motive. 27. Thus, there is no incentive for the respondent-NRSA to resort to evasion of tax which could result either in the profits soaring higher or any individual being benefited. On the other hand if there existed a liability, the respondent co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
