2025 (11) TMI 1554 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax demand set aside; extended limitation unsustainable absent wilful suppression, penalties under Sections 77, 78 quashed

CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax demand of Rs. 53,390/-, which had been raised on the basis of differences between ST-3 ... Demand of service tax on differential value with interest and penalty - entire demand has been raised on the basis of difference in the figures as shown in the ST-3 returns and the data received from the Income Tax Department on the basis of Form-26AS / TDS Statements - HELD THAT:- A similar matter of limitation had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G. D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., [2023 (8) TMI 995 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. In the said case also, the demand had been raised consequent to the audit. The extended period of limitation was invoked on the ground that under self assessment, the Appellant assessee was required to assess its own tax due on the services provided by it and file returns under Section 70. By claiming the wrong Cenvat credit, the Appellant willfully and deliberately suppressed the facts from the Department. The Division Bench referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE, Mumbai [1995 (3) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] and made detailed observation for holding that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. The Appellant’s case on limitation is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement - the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.53,390/- could not have been raised by invoking extended period of limitation, hence liable to be set aside. As the demand itself is being set aside, the penalties imposed under Section 78 as well as under Section 77 are also set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed on merits as well as on limitation. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the differential amount between the value of taxable services declared in ST-3 returns and the receipts reflected in Form 26AS/TDS statements, representing labour charges/reimbursement, could be treated as additional taxable value for levy of service tax. 1.2 Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017) was validly invoked for demanding service tax, interest and penalties when the assessee had been regularly filing ST-3 returns and the demand was based on third-party income-tax data and audit findings. 1.3 Whether penalties imposed under Sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017) were sustainable when the principal demand itself was held to be unsustainable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Taxability of differential amount based on Form 26AS/TDS Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The Tribunal noted that the entire demand arose only from the difference between the gross receipts declared in the ST-3 returns and the higher receipts reflected in Form 26AS/TDS data obtained from the Income Tax Department. 2.2 On examination of the Profit & Loss Account for the relevant financial year, the Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 3,55,934/- was shown as labour charges on the credit side and an equivalent amount was also shown as labour charges on the debit side, indicating a corresponding outgo. 2.3 The Tribunal held that these accounting entries were clear and did not warrant any adverse inference so as to treat the said amount as additional taxable value merely because it appeared in Form 26AS/TDS data. Conclusions 2.4 The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had correctly discharged service tax liability and that the differential amount of Rs. 3,55,934/-, being in the nature of labour charges/reimbursement, could not be automatically treated as taxable value on the sole basis of Form 26AS/TDS statements. The appeal was allowed on merits. Issue 2 - Validity of invoking extended period of limitation under Section 73 Legal framework (as discussed) 2.5 The Tribunal referred to the statutory scheme under Sections 70, 72 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, as analysed in an earlier Division Bench decision, to emphasize: (i) self-assessment by the assessee and filing of ST-3 returns; (ii) the power and responsibility of the Central Excise Officer under Section 72 for best judgment assessment where the assessee fails to correctly assess tax; and (iii) the conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73, requiring proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade. 2.6 The Tribunal, relying on the Division Bench decision, also noted that CBEC's own instructions and the Manual for Scrutiny of Service Tax Returns affirm that scrutiny and correct assessment of returns is the primary statutory responsibility of departmental officers, even under a self-assessment regime. Interpretation and reasoning 2.7 The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been regularly filing ST-3 returns and that the department had not demonstrated any evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax. 2.8 It was emphasized, following the Division Bench precedent, that mere operation under self-assessment and any alleged incorrect or incomplete self-assessment cannot, by itself, constitute 'suppression of facts' or intention to evade so as to justify the extended period. 2.9 The Tribunal further held, in line with the earlier ruling, that the fact that the alleged short payment or discrepancy came to light only through audit or from income-tax data does not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking the extended period, especially when the assessee's returns were on record and could have been scrutinized by the proper officer within the normal period. 2.10 The Tribunal considered the ratio that it is the responsibility of the Central Excise Officer to scrutinize the returns and, if required, to make best judgment assessment under Section 72 and issue a show cause notice within the normal limitation period, and that failure to do so cannot be converted into a ground to invoke the extended period under Section 73. Conclusions 2.11 The Tribunal held that the case was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision and that the extended period of limitation had been wrongly invoked. Accordingly, the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 53,390/- raised by invoking the extended period under Section 73 was held to be unsustainable and liable to be set aside on limitation. Issue 3 - Sustainability of penalties under Sections 78 and 77 Interpretation and reasoning 2.12 The Tribunal held that once the principal demand itself is set aside both on merits (nature of receipts/reimbursement) and on limitation (invalid invocation of extended period), the foundation for imposition of penalties under Sections 78 and 77 automatically fails. Conclusions 2.13 The penalties imposed under Section 78 (equal to the tax demand) and under Section 77 (Rs. 10,000/-) were set aside as consequential to the setting aside of the demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.