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>Second show cause notice set aside as time-barred when based on same facts as first notice without fresh suppression</h1> <h3>M/s Mamta Advertisers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow</h3> M/s Mamta Advertisers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow - TMI ISSUES: Whether a subsequent Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued for a later period is sustainable when the facts were already known to the Department at the time of the first SCN.Whether invocation of extended period of limitation is permissible on the ground of suppression or concealment of facts when the Department had knowledge of the relevant facts at the time of the first SCN.Whether demands based solely on third party data (Income Tax Return and Form 26AS) can sustain service tax liability when returns have been regularly filed by the appellant. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The subsequent SCN issued for the period 2016-17 is not sustainable as 'all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the Adjudicating Authority' at the time of the first SCN for 2015-16, and therefore, the Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation 'in the garb of suppression of concealment of facts.'The appellant, having filed ST-3 Returns regularly, 'cannot be held liable for misleading the authorities or suppressing the information from the Department.'The demand based solely on third party data provided by the Income Tax Department, invoking the longer period of limitation, is 'not sustainable on limitation' and liable to be set aside. RATIONALE: The Court applied settled legal principles relating to limitation and suppression of facts, relying on precedent that once a Show Cause Notice has been issued on a particular proposition, a second SCN invoking extended limitation period cannot be issued on the same facts.Decisions cited include the principle that the Department cannot 'plead suppression of fact' to justify extended limitation when the facts were already known, as held in prior Supreme Court and High Court rulings and consistent Tribunal decisions.The adjudication was based on reconciliation of gross receipts as per third party Income Tax data vis-Ã -vis ST-3 Returns, but the Court emphasized that knowledge of these facts at the time of the first SCN precludes extended limitation invocation.No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted; the judgment follows established doctrine on limitation and concealment.
TaxTMI 