2026-VIL-1034-BOM-ST

SERVICE TAX High Court Cases

Service Tax - Extended period under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Principle of consistency in revenue matters - Whether Revenue can take different stand on substantially identical facts and invoke extended period of limitation - HELD - Principle of Consistency is sacrosanct in revenue matters. Revenue cannot be permitted to take different stand when facts are almost identical. If permitted same would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity - Earlier appeal involving identical issue cannot be dismissed while later identical appeal is challenged. Revenue having taken conscious decision to accept principles in one case cannot be permitted to take opposite stand in similar case. Law would be in state of confusion if permitted to do so - Extended period of limitation can be invoked only when specific and explicit averments challenging bona fides of conduct of assessee are made in Show Cause Notice. Provision applies only when fraud collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact is specifically alleged with intent to evade payment. Unless assessee is put to notice which of various defaults enumerated in proviso is committed assessee has no opportunity to meet department's case - SCN must specifically state which allegation against assessee falls within four corners of proviso. Burden of proof of proving mala fide conduct lies with Revenue. No specific averments regarding fraud collusion willful misstatement or suppression of facts appear in notice - Extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Demand is barred by normal period of limitation – Revenue appeal is dismissed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page