Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East Versus Team HR Services Ltd.
Service Tax
2018 (10) TMI 406 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2019 (25) G. S. T. L. 207 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-8-2018
SERTA 23/2018 & CM No.34017/2018
Service Tax
MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MS. ANU MALHOTRA JJ.
Appellant Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate.
Respondent Through: None
The Revenue's appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 seeks to urge a question of law with respect to the correctness of the Tribunal's (“CESTAT”) order to the effect that in the overall circumstances of the case, the impugned order, insofar as it held that the extended period of limitation invok
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
oncerned 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 returns under the head “business support servic
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
bmitted that the CESTAT's decision that no misrepresentation was resorted to in this case, was not correct.
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.
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 asses
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =