Leased circuit taxation requires a dedicated, exclusive link; bona fide interpretative dispute also defeats extended limitation.

Bandwidth-sharing telecom facilities were held not to fall within the taxable category of leased circuit because the statutory definition requires a dedicated link between two fixed locations for the exclusive use of the subscriber; an inclusive reference to speech, data or telegraph circuits could not override those essential conditions. Interconnection service provided to another telegraph authority was also not service to a subscriber. On limitation, the liability turned on a bona fide interpretative dispute, so non-payment could not be treated as suppression or intent to evade tax. The extended period was therefore unavailable and the demand was time-barred, with consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bandwidth-sharing telecommunication network facility provided by a telegraph authority fell within the taxable category of leased circuit under Section 65(60) and Section 65(105)(zd) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression or intention to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the bandwidth-sharing telecommunication network facility provided by a telegraph authority fell within the taxable category of leased circuit under Section 65(60) and Section 65(105)(zd) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The definition of leased circuit consisted of a means part requiring a dedicated link between two fixed locations for the exclusive use of the subscriber, and an inclusive part referring to speech, data or telegraph circuits. The inclusive limb could not be read in isolation so as to disregard the essential features of the means part. A circuit that was not dedicated, not confined to two fixed locations, and not for exclusive use did not answer the statutory description. The telegraph authority character of the service recipient also meant that interconnection service to another telegraph authority was not a service to a subscriber.

Conclusion: The service did not fall within the taxable category of leased circuit, and the demand on this issue was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression or intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of the statutory definition and the liability was at best debatable. On such facts, non-payment could not be attributed to suppression, misstatement, or deliberate evasion. The extended limitation period was therefore not available to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on merits and on limitation, and the impugned demand was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For a service to be taxed as a leased circuit, the statutory requirements of a dedicated link between two fixed locations for exclusive use must be satisfied, and where the liability depends on a bona fide interpretative dispute, the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or intent to evade.

---