Suppression of facts and taxable commission sustained service tax demand, interest, penalties, and extended limitation

Non-filing of ST-3 returns, failure to answer departmental queries, and non-disclosure of taxable turnover were treated as suppression of facts and wilful misrepresentation, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period under the service tax law. Commission received for Business Auxiliary Services was held taxable, as the activity did not fall within the negative list under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Earlier settlement of a prior period under Sabka Vishwas did not extinguish liability for the later disputed period. The demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation and the extended period under the service tax law was correctly invoked; (ii) whether commission received for Business Auxiliary Services was taxable and the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation and the extended period under the service tax law was correctly invoked.

Analysis: The appellant had delayed responses to departmental correspondence, did not reply to the show cause notice, and did not appear before the adjudicating authority. Earlier proceedings for a similar period had already been initiated and settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. For the disputed period, the appellant neither furnished the requested details nor filed ST-3 returns. These circumstances were treated as suppression of facts and wilful misrepresentation with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The extended period was held to be validly invoked and the demand was not barred by time.

Issue (ii): Whether commission received for Business Auxiliary Services was taxable and the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant admittedly received commission for rendering Business Auxiliary Services. The activity was found not to fall within the negative list under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The earlier settlement for the preceding period did not extinguish liability for the disputed subsequent period. On the facts found, non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax were treated as deliberate evasion, and no infirmity was found in confirmation of the demand along with consequential interest and penalties.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected after upholding both the invocation of the extended limitation period and the tax demand on commission received for taxable services.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-filing of statutory returns, failure to respond to departmental queries, and non-disclosure of taxable turnover can amount to suppression of facts and wilful misrepresentation, thereby justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and confirmation of service tax demand where the underlying service is taxable.

---