2025-VIL-2046-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax – Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 – Invoking of extended period of limitation – Demand of tax – Appellant is engaged in business of construction related activities – In terms of buyer agreement, Appellant recovers various charges from buyer – After audit, department noticed that Appellant had not paid service tax on amount received towards car parking charges – Department issued show cause notice to Appellant by proposing demand of service tax on car parking charges by invoking extended period of limitation – Adjudicating authority confirmed demand as proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Adjudicating authority – Whether Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in holding that extended period of limitation was correctly invoked – HELD – For invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, tax should not have been paid because of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of fact or contravention of any provision. Mere failure to pay tax is not sufficient to attract extended period of limitation. If facts come to notice only when audit is carried out, it does not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) upholding invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act cannot be sustained and is set aside – Appeal allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page