TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the service tax demand raised on legal services received under reverse charge was barred by limitation, and whether the extended period could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax.
Analysis: The demand covered the period October 2014 to June 2017, while the show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2020. The Tribunal held that the demand relating to October 2014 to September 2015 was beyond five years and therefore time-barred. For the remaining period, the Tribunal examined whether the conditions for invoking the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 were satisfied. It found no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression of facts. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been regularly discharging output service tax in cash and that the record did not disclose any positive act indicating intent to evade tax.
Conclusion: The show cause notice was held to be barred by time and the demand was set aside. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The tax demand failed on limitation, and no adjudication on merits was undertaken once the extended period was found inapplicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be invoked only on proof of deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment or omission, without such intent, is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
