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>Show cause notice issued beyond five-year limitation period under Section 73(6) ruled time-barred and invalid</h1> <h3>M/s. Desein Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-II</h3> M/s. Desein Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-II - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the Order-in-Original confirming part of the demand along with interest and penalty, calculation of service tax liability, time limitation for issuing show cause notice, and applicability of interest and penalty.Calculation of Service Tax Liability:The appellant provided taxable services and was alleged to have not discharged the service tax liability for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. The Commissioner confirmed a balance amount of Rs. 40,01,704 for the period 1.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, after dropping certain amounts due to wrong calculation and excess demand. The appellant challenged the computation of demand, arguing that receipts for the whole year were treated as those for the second half-year. The Tribunal examined the summary of ST-3 Returns and found discrepancies in the calculation methodology.Time Limitation for Show Cause Notice:The show cause notice was issued on 21.04.2014, beyond the period of five years from the relevant date. The relevant date for computing the period of five years was determined based on the filing of returns. As per the provisions of the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules, the notice was held to be time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that no demand can be raised beyond the period of five years, rendering the notice unsustainable.Interest and Penalty:The Revenue argued that the appellant did not cooperate and wilfully suppressed facts, justifying the imposition of interest and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. However, since the show cause notice was deemed time-barred, the Tribunal held that neither the demand nor the interest and penalty were maintainable or leviable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.Separate Judgement by Judges:The judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. P. V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical).
TaxTMI 