Review of a set-aside order is untenable; bona fide belief can defeat extended limitation in service tax disputes.

A review order cannot survive once the original adjudication has already been set aside in appeal, because there is then no subsisting order to review. In relation to commission received by a motor vehicle dealer from finance companies, prior Tribunal authority was treated as covering taxability, and the demand failed on merits. An incorrect provision cited in the show cause notice was not, by itself, fatal if the notice otherwise disclosed the ingredients of the correct provision. The extended limitation period was not available without suppression with intent to evade tax, and a bona fide belief on taxability negatived such suppression.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review order could be sustained after the original adjudication had already been set aside. (ii) Whether commission received by a motor vehicle dealer from finance companies was liable to service tax, and whether the extended period could be invoked on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether a review order could be sustained after the original adjudication had already been set aside.

Analysis: The original adjudication had ceased to survive once it was set aside in appeal. A subsequent review of that non-existent order was therefore not legally maintainable.

Conclusion: The review order was invalid and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether commission received by a motor vehicle dealer from finance companies was liable to service tax, and whether the extended period could be invoked on the facts.

Analysis: The commission issue was treated as already covered by prior Tribunal authority. On limitation, the mere use of an incorrect provision in the notice did not by itself invalidate the notice if the relevant ingredients of the correct provision were present. However, the non-disclosure of the commission in returns was not treated as suppression with intent to evade tax because the assessee held a bona fide belief regarding taxability. As a result, invocation of the extended period was not justified. The demand also failed on merits.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on limitation as well as merits.

Final Conclusion: The controversy was resolved partly in favour of the assessee, with the revenue challenge failing and the assessee's challenge succeeding to the extent indicated above.

Ratio Decidendi: An incorrect section number in a show cause notice is not fatal if the notice otherwise discloses the ingredients of the correct statutory provision, but the extended period cannot be invoked without suppression with intent to evade tax; a bona fide belief negatives such suppression.

---