2023 (8) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e became taxable to service tax with effect from 01.07.2010. The said levy was challenged before Hon'ble Bombay High Court by Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry. On 19.01.2012, Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the levy and collection of service tax on construction of complex service. The appellant obtained registration of service tax on 17.02.2012. The appellant ascertained on their own service tax amounting to Rs. 6,05,60,663/- for the period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 and paid the same. Further, they paid service tax of Rs. 1,01,42,141/-. Totally they have paid service tax of Rs. 7,07,02,774/- for the period from Financial Year 2010-11 to Financial Year 2015-16. They also paid interest of Rs. 23,39,370/- on their own ascertainment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the entire service tax was paid before issue of show cause notice. Further, interest of Rs. 23,39,370/- was paid before issue of show cause notice and voluntarily additional amount of interest of Rs. 14,35,461/- was paid on 19.01.2018 after passing of the order-in-original towards differential interest. He has submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 has provided that if the service tax is paid on the basis of own ascertainment, then Revenue is not empowered to issue show cause notice to the appellant. He has further submitted that the original authority has not computed the quantum of interest that was required to be paid by the appellant though the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pays service tax before issue of show cause notice, then Revenue cannot issue show cause notice. The said provision is not applicable only if the non-payment of service tax is on account of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of duty. We find that in the present case, Revenue has invoked proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for raising demand for the larger period from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2016 by issue of show cause notice on 27.04.2017. However, we find that for invocation of extended period and for making inoperative the said provisions of subsection (3) of Section 74 ibid, there are dual criteria of collusion, misstatement, suppression of fact and intention to evade duty. ....