Extended limitation and architect service requirements defeated tax demand where suppression was not alleged and registration was absent

Extended-period demand cannot be sustained without foundational allegations of suppression or misdeclaration in the show cause notice, so the larger limitation period was held inapplicable. Separately, designing, planning and site supervision did not amount to taxable architect service where the person was not registered under the Architects Act, 1972, because the statutory definition requires registration in the prescribed register. On these grounds, the demand and penalties were not maintainable and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand for the extended period of limitation was sustainable in the absence of any allegation of suppression or misdeclaration in the show cause notice; (ii) whether the appellant's activity of designing, planning and site supervision amounted to taxable architect service when the appellant was not registered under the Architects Act.

Issue (i): whether the demand for the extended period of limitation was sustainable in the absence of any allegation of suppression or misdeclaration in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not allege suppression or misdeclaration. In the absence of such foundational allegations, invocation of the extended period could not be justified. The demand raised for the extended period was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand to that extent was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant's activity of designing, planning and site supervision amounted to taxable architect service when the appellant was not registered under the Architects Act.

Analysis: Architect service under the Finance Act required a person whose name was entered in the register maintained under section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972. The appellant was not so registered. Mere engagement in designing, planning, architecture-related work and site supervision did not, by itself, establish provision of architect service in the statutory sense.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to be classified as providing architect service.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended-period demand cannot stand without allegations of suppression or misdeclaration in the show cause notice, and architect service cannot be fastened on a person who is not registered as an architect under the governing statute.

---