Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the service tax demand was barred by limitation when the audit for the relevant period had already been conducted and no objection regarding short payment or non-payment was raised, and whether invocation of the extended period was justified.
Analysis: The relevant period was 2012-13 and 2013-14, while audit had been undertaken on 28.03.2014 and 02.04.2014. The audit report did not record any objection of short payment or non-payment of service tax. The show cause notice was issued on 21.04.2017, beyond the normal limitation period. In the absence of suppression, the extended period was held to be unavailable. The reliance placed on the Larger Bench decision was found inapplicable on the facts, because the effect of prior audit was not considered there.
Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and unsustainable; the impugned order was set aside and relief followed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The adjudication turned on limitation alone, and the service tax demand did not survive because the notice was issued beyond the permissible period without established suppression.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the department had already conducted audit for the relevant period and recorded no objection, a later show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period cannot be sustained on the basis of the extended period absent suppression.