TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue loses appeal as service tax demand dropped due to five-year limitation period violation</h1> <h3>M/s. C.E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata And Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata Versus M/s. C.E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd.</h3> M/s. C.E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata And Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata Versus M/s. C.E. Testing Company Pvt. Ltd. - ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the demand of Rs.73,07,023/- dropped by the Adjudicating Authority was justified.2. Whether the confirmed demand of Rs.25,70,758/- was correct, particularly in terms of the applicability of service tax to sub-contractors and the extended period provisions.Summary:Issue 1: Demand of Rs.73,07,023/- Dropped by the Adjudicating AuthorityThe Appellant provided documentary evidence including P & L Account, Balance Sheet, ST Returns, CA Certificate, and a Reconciliation Statement. The Adjudicating Authority verified these documents and concluded that the demand of Rs.73,07,023/- should be dropped. The Tribunal agreed with this conclusion, noting that the Show Cause Notice covered a period beyond the extended five-year limit and that the method used for calculating the tax liability was consistent with the law. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the Adjudicating Authority's decision to drop the demand was correct.Issue 2: Confirmed Demand of Rs.25,70,758/-The Appellant argued that the services provided as a sub-contractor should not be taxable based on earlier circulars from 1997. The Adjudicating Authority, however, relied on a 2007 circular which stated that sub-contractors are liable for service tax. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant that the 2007 circular should not apply retroactively to periods before its issuance. Consequently, the demand for the period prior to 23/08/2007 was deemed unsustainable. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice was issued even for periods beyond the allowable five-year limit, further invalidating the demand for the extended period.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the Appellant is liable to pay service tax only for the period from October 2007 to March 2008. Any amounts already paid during the proceedings should be adjusted accordingly, with any excess refunded to the Appellant. The appeal filed by the Assessee was thus disposed of, and the order was pronounced in open court on 30/11/2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
