2018 (5) TMI 987 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 307 (Raj.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 272 (Raj) – Extended period of Limitation – suppression of facts – Business Auxiliary Service – Whether the CESTAT was justified in restricting the demand of Service Tax to normal period despite holding the activity of the assessee to be classifiable under “Business Auxiliary Service” and liable to Service Tax, when the assessee has concealed and suppressed the said information? – Held that: – the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ was expanded and made much more wide with effect from 10.9.04. The appellant was already paying service tax under various categories and separate litigation was there whether the activity undertaken by the appellant is covered within the definition of ‘tour operators’. It is further on record that the appellant has been subjected to periodical audit repeatedly both by the the department as well as statutory audit by CAG. It is further on record that the a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
stricting the demand of Service Tax to normal period despite holding the activity of the assessee to be classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and liable to Service Tax, when the assessee has concealed and suppressed the said information? (ii) Whether the CESTAT was justified in deleting the demand for the extended period and thereby granting benefit to the assessee of its own fault, as the assessee has suppressed the fact of its liability with intent to evade payment of Service Tax? 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Govt. company having 100% share holding of State of Rajasthan. The main activity of the appellant is to develop tourism and infrastructure activities in the State of Rajasthan. They have introduced railway transport by the name & style of Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels , to develop the tourism in Rajasthan for people coming from abroad and outside State. They have entered into an agreement with various emporia/shops which come
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Section 73 has provided normal period of limitation which has not been extended by the tribunal. Thus, the tribunal has committed error in recording the finding with regard to limitation. 5. We have heard counsel for the appellant. 6. While considering the case, the tribunal has rightly observed as under:- 11. The appellant has advanced the arguments and strongly contended that the demand is hit by time bar in the absence of any positive evidence enumerated in the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated 20.10.2010 has been issued covering the demand for the period April, 2005 to March, 2010. The only reason cited in the show cause notice and the impugned order for invoking the extended time limitation under section 73 for demand of service tax is that the appellant has failed to take registration in the category of Business Auxiliary Service and have failed to file the periodic ST 3 returns. In this regard, we note that the definition of Business Auxiliary Service was expanded
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =