2026-VIL-689-CESTAT-CHD-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 - Demand of service tax on the basis of the difference between the gross receipts reflected in the appellant's ITR and the service tax paid by the appellant as per the ST-3 returns, invoking the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of the difference between the ITR and ST-3 returns, as there was no positive evidence of fraud, suppression of facts, willful mis-statement or deliberate contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax. The appellant had been regularly filing ST-3 returns and paying service tax on receipt basis. The Department failed to adduce any evidence to show that the appellant had rendered taxable service to the category of persons who do not fall under the category liable to pay service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism basis – Further, the demand cannot be raised solely on the basis of the difference between the ST-3 returns and the 26AS/ITR, as it is a settled principle of law that service tax can be levied only when there is a clear identification of the service provider, service recipient and the consideration paid for the same. In the absence of such evidence, the Department cannot raise demands on the basis of other statutory returns like ITRs or balance sheets - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page