2018 (10) TMI 406 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI – Extended period of limitation – Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – assessment of Service Tax – Business Auxiliary Services – Held that:- The CESTAT was influenced, as is apparent from the reading of the order, by the prevailing confusion between the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between “business auxiliary services”, which insisted from 2003 and “business support services”, which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his assessment returns after 01.05.2006 when business support service was introduced.
–
The mere advertence to the possibility of service tax – without any material or evidence – or even a finding that such service tax had been collected by the assessee during the past, cannot per se amount to a conclusion that it had practiced fraud or misrepresentation – invocation of extended period not justified.
–
Appeal dismissed – decided aga
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
luded the kind of service that the assessee has provided, i.e. marketing of car loans and other retail finance products viz. two-wheelers, personal loans, etc. The assessee resisted the notice including the invocation of the extended period. After adjudication, the Order-in-Original (by the concerned Commissioner), confirmed the demand for the period 01.07.2003 to pare down the quantification of demand; interest towards levy. The Commissioner was of the opinion that in the overall circumstances of the case, invocation of the extended period was proper and appropriate. In doing so, he was influenced in large measure, by the conditions of the agreement which the assessee entered into with its service recipients; that had adverted to levy of tax @ 5%. The CESTAT, to whom the assessee approached, confirmed the Commissioner s order to the extent of levy of demand. However, invocation of the extended period was set aside. The levy was confirmed to the extent that the assessee had filed retur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between business auxiliary services , which insisted from 2003 and business support services , which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his assessment returns after 01.05.2006 when business support service was introduced. In these circumstances, the mere advertence to the possibility of service tax – without any material or evidence – or even a finding that such service tax had been collected by the assessee during the past, cannot per se amount to a conclusion that it had practiced fraud or misrepresentation. It has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme Court in Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2012 (9) SCC 753, Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Commissioner of CE, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 462, and Commissioner of Central Excise Chemiphar Drugs, 1989 (2) SCC 12 that mere omission to fulfil one s tax liability cannot automatically lead the autho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =