Service tax demand cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; limitation also fails where order-in-original was not supplied.

Appeal limitation was not applied mechanically where the assessee made repeated efforts to obtain the order-in-original, including departmental correspondence, writ proceedings and an RTI request, and filed the appeal soon after receiving it; the dismissal on limitation was set aside. Service tax demand based only on Form 26AS entries, without independent enquiry or corroborative evidence establishing taxable services, was unsustainable; the confirmed demand was set aside. On the same record, the extended limitation period under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not invokable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the permissible period in the circumstances of non-supply of the order-in-original; (ii) whether a service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS entries, without corroborative verification, could be sustained and whether the extended period under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invokable.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the permissible period in the circumstances of non-supply of the order-in-original.

Analysis: The record showed repeated efforts by the appellant to obtain a copy of the order-in-original, including correspondence with the department, recourse to the High Court, and an RTI application. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed shortly after receipt of the order through the RTI response. On these facts, the delay was treated as not attributable to the appellant.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have been filed within the permissible period, and the dismissal on limitation was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether a service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS entries, without corroborative verification, could be sustained and whether the extended period under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 was invokable.

Analysis: The demand rested entirely on Form 26AS data for the relevant years, while no independent enquiry or corroborative material was brought on record to establish taxable services in the manner assumed by the department. The entries under sections 194C and 194IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were examined, and the Tribunal found that the department had not substantiated the alleged liability with proper verification. In such circumstances, the invocation of the extended period was also found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand was set aside and the extended period was held not invokable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the service tax demand did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be sustained merely on the basis of Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence establishing taxable receipt, and where the assessee shows bona fide efforts to obtain the order-in-original, limitation cannot be applied mechanically to defeat the appeal.

---