TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rying out work in relation to promotion of Gujarati Cultural, Educational and aesthetic aspects which is entrusted to Municipality under Article 243 W read with 12th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The levy of Service Tax in the facts of the present case involve interpretation of law and therefore, the Bonafide of the appellant cannot be doubted. Hence, the demand for extended period is not sustainable on limitation. The mens rea/the intent to evade the tax liability is the core for invoking the extended period over the normal period. Appellants apparently have mentioned themselves to be under the bona fide belief of still not being liable under service tax. Based on the said belief only they have not disclosed the said disputed taxable value in ST-3 returns filed before the department. Their such bona fide belief stands corroborated from the fact that all the transactions related to the said disputed taxable value has been disclosed by the appellant in their books of account, profit loss account and in Balance Sheet. If the appellant have intention to evade service tax they would not have disclosed the same. It is also found that the documents relied on by the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification 25/2012-ST. It was submitted that the appellant had rendered services to various Government Entities such as Tourism Corporation of Gujarat; Roads and Buildings Department, Government of Gujarat; Department of Museums, State of Gujarat, and other Governmental entities which fall under purview of entry 12, 12A and other relevant entries of Notification 25/2012-ST. 3. He also submits that there is also an issue with regards to classification of service as the service rendered is works contract service and therefore service tax must be charged on reverse charge basis. For this reliance was placed on section 65B (44) of Finance Act, 1994 r/w. Rule 2A of Service Tax Rules, 2006. 4. He further submits that the contracts for which demand is said to be raised are contract entered into with government authorities and there could be no suppression of facts that could be alleged. 5. He also submits that figures from 26AS cannot be used for determining service tax liability. He placed reliance on following judgments: (i) M/S Luit Developers Private Limited 2022 (3) TMI 50 (ii) M/s Quest Engineers Consultant Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 96 (iii) Kush Construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Officer within the period of 30 months. However, the demand could be raised for a period beyond the said period of 30 months to the maximum of 5 years. But for the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. 10. We find that the extended period of limitation was invoked under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, in the instant case only because the actual taxable value was not reflected/shown in the relevant column of ST-3 returns filed by the appellant during the relevant period. Apart from this the Show Cause Notice has not alleged anything which leads to wilful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of Service tax. As per the facts of the present case we find that the appellant have vehemently argued that they had provided the services to Governmental Authority in particular M/s. Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Limited, 100% owned by Gujarat Government and the activity of the appellant is carrying out work in relation to promotion of Gujarati Cultural, Educational and aesthetic aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this circumstance service tax demand by invoking the extended period is legally not correct. We draw support from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I reported as 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) = (2007) taxmann.com 532 (S.C.), wherein it has been held that the expression suppression as has been used in the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is accompanied by very strong words as fraud or collusion and, therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. 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. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful misstatement. The latter implies making of any incorrect statement with the kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly clear that mens rea/the intent to evade the tax liability is the core for invoking the extended period over the normal period. Appellants apparently have mentioned themselves to be under the bona fide belief of still not being liable under service tax. Based on the said belief only they have not disclosed the said disputed taxable value in ST-3 returns filed before the department. Their such bona fide belief stands corroborated from the fact that all the transactions related to the said disputed taxable value has been disclosed by the appellant in their books of account, profit loss account and in Balance Sheet. If the appellant have intention to evade service tax they would not have disclosed the same. 14. We also find that the documents relied on by the authority for issuing Show Cause Notice are the balance-sheet, P L Account, 26AS, Income Ledger, and ST-3 returns for the period from October 2014 to June 2017 and clearly, these are the statutory documents which have to be prepared and filed before the respective authorities within the time-frame prescribed under the respective statutes like the Income Tax Act or the Companies Act, or Service tax law as the case may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
