Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee (A) and set aside the impugned order of the Commr (A). It held that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to s.73(1) of the Finance Act for non-payment of service tax on car parking charges was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that mere contravention of statutory provisions while filing self-assessed returns, without any positive act indicating fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, does not justify recourse to the extended limitation. As the SCN and record did not establish a conscious intent to evade service tax, the preconditions for applying the extended five-year period were not met. Consequently, the demand raised beyond the normal limitation period, along with related consequences, was quashed, and relief was granted to A.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.