Service tax paid with interest before SCN issuance makes demand under section 73(1) not maintainable

CESTAT New Delhi held that where appellant paid service tax with interest before SCN issuance and informed the department, the SCN under section 73(1) of Finance Act was not maintainable. The tribunal found sub-section 73(3) applicable as sub-section 73(4) exceptions for fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression were not established. Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly denied benefit of sub-section 73(3) merely because investigation was initiated by DG Intelligence. Following Supreme Court precedent in Pushpam Pharmaceutical, suppression must be deliberate with intent to evade tax. The impugned order confirming demand was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether a show cause notice could be validly issued under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, when the appellant had already paid the service tax along with interest prior to the issuance of the notice, specifically in light of the provisions of section 73(3) and section 73(4) of the Finance Act. Connected to this primary issue is the question of whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) could be invoked on the grounds of fraud, suppression, or willful mis-statement, thereby denying the appellant the benefit of section 73(3). Additionally, the Tribunal considered the imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act and the applicability of the self-assessment scheme in relation to the alleged suppression or evasion of service tax.

The appellant had availed External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs) from foreign banks and paid certain processing/structuring fees in foreign currency, which were later found to be liable to service tax. Upon inquiry initiated by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), the appellant voluntarily paid the due service tax and interest before any show cause notice was issued and informed the department accordingly, invoking section 73(3) of the Finance Act. Despite this, the department issued a show cause notice invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73(1) and denied the benefit of section 73(3) by relying on section 73(4), alleging willful suppression and intent to evade service tax. The appellant challenged this in appeal.

Issue-wise detailed analysis is as follows:

1. Applicability of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act when service tax and interest are paid prior to issuance of show cause notice

The legal framework under section 73(3) states that if a person liable to pay service tax voluntarily pays the tax and informs the Central Excise Officer in writing before the issuance of a show cause notice under section 73(1), no such notice shall be served in respect of the amount so paid. Section 73(4) carves out exceptions where section 73(3) shall not apply, specifically in cases involving fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade tax.

The Court examined the facts that the appellant had deposited the entire service tax and interest amount on 25.07.2014, well before the show cause notice dated 31.01.2017, and had also informed the department in writing. The show cause notice itself admitted this payment. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit of section 73(3) relying on section 73(4), alleging willful suppression and intent to evade tax based on the DGCEI's investigation.

The Tribunal rejected the artificial distinction drawn by the adjudicating authority that the notice was issued due to investigation and not on the basis of returns filed, holding that the show cause notice was indeed issued under section 73(1) and that the provisions of section 73(3) and (4) apply irrespective of the source of information leading to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal emphasized that mere non-payment or delay in payment does not automatically amount to suppression or intent to evade tax.

Relevant precedents were extensively relied upon, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. which held that "suppression of facts" must be deliberate and with intent to escape payment of duty, not mere omission. The Delhi High Court's decisions in Bharat Hotels Limited and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. further clarified that invocation of extended limitation and denial of section 73(3) benefit requires proof of wilful suppression or intent to evade tax, which cannot be presumed merely because the tax was unpaid or because the assessee was under self-assessment.

The Tribunal also referred to several decisions of the Tribunal itself (e.g., Raydean Industries, G.D. Goenka Private Limited, India Glycols Limited, Sunshine Steel Industries) which consistently held that operating under self-assessment does not ipso facto establish suppression or intent to evade tax, and that the department is duty-bound to scrutinize returns and call for documents before invoking extended limitation or penalties.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal found no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had wilfully suppressed facts or intended to evade service tax. The appellant had voluntarily paid the tax and interest promptly upon detection and had cooperated with the department. The mere fact that the DGCEI initiated an investigation did not establish suppression or fraud. Therefore, section 73(4) was held inapplicable, and the benefit of section 73(3) was rightly claimed by the appellant.

2. Invocation of the extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1)

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73(1) applies only where service tax has not been paid or short paid due to fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade tax. The Tribunal observed that the requirements for invoking the extended period and the conditions under section 73(4) are identical.

The Tribunal found that the department failed to produce any material evidence to prove that the appellant had any intention to evade tax or had suppressed facts wilfully. The appellant had disclosed all relevant transactions and paid the tax voluntarily. The department's reliance on the fact that the appellant was under self-assessment or that the information came to light only after investigation was insufficient to invoke the extended limitation period.

The Tribunal reiterated the settled legal position that mere non-payment or delay in payment, or difference of opinion on taxability, does not amount to suppression or evasion. The extended period can only be invoked if the department establishes one of the specified elements, which was not done here.

3. Imposition of penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalties on the ground that the appellant had suppressed facts with intent to evade tax. However, the Tribunal held that since the extended limitation period and section 73(4) were not applicable, the basis for imposing mandatory penalties under section 78 also fell away. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court decision in Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. that payment of service tax and interest before issuance of show cause notice precludes initiation of penalty proceedings under section 76.

The Tribunal further noted that if there was any doubt regarding taxability, the appellant could have sought clarification, but this did not amount to evasion. The appellant's bona fide belief and voluntary payment negated any wilful default or suppression.

4. Role of self-assessment scheme and departmental scrutiny

The Tribunal emphasized that self-assessment does not absolve the department of its duty to scrutinize returns and conduct inquiries. The department cannot rely solely on the fact that an assessee operates under self-assessment to presume suppression or evasion. The Tribunal referred to departmental instructions and rules mandating officers to scrutinize and verify self-assessment returns and to call for documents as necessary.

The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that because the appellant was under self-assessment, it was automatically liable for extended limitation and penalties. Such a view would render the self-assessment scheme meaningless and unjustly burden the assessee.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice issued under section 73(1) after the appellant had paid service tax and interest and informed the department was not maintainable under section 73(3). The department failed to prove any element of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax necessary to invoke section 73(4) or the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed under sections 77 and 78 were not justified.

Significant holdings and core principles established include:

"A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of section 73 of the Finance Act shows that where any service tax has not been paid, the person chargeable with the service tax may pay the amount of service tax chargeable on the basis of his own ascertainment before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of such service tax and inform the central excise officer of such payments in writing, who on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) of section 73 in respect of the amount so paid."

"Suppression of facts must be deliberate and with an intent to escape payment of duty. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty."

"Mere non-payment or delay in payment of service tax, or operating under self-assessment, does not ipso facto amount to suppression of facts with intent to evade tax."

"The department cannot invoke extended period of limitation merely because the case arose from investigation and not from returns filed."

"Payment of service tax and interest before issuance of show cause notice precludes initiation of penalty proceedings under section 76."

"It is the duty of the proper officer to scrutinize the correctness of the duty assessed by the assessee and, if necessary, call for records and documents, but failure to do so does not justify invocation of extended limitation or penalties."

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders confirming service tax demand, interest, and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---