TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mercial Training or Coaching Services" [Section 65 (27)/65 (105) (zzc) of the Finance Act, 1994]. The details of the impugned demands are as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Relevant period and date of Show Cause Notice Demand of Service Tax (Rs.) 1. Demand of Service Tax under "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" on the ground of denial of Exemption Notification No.24/2004-ST, dated 10.09.2004 10.09.2004 to 09.03.2005 SCN dated 25.04.2006 33,39,829.00 2. 10.09.2004 to 09.03.2005 SCN dated 24.08.2007 71,50,372.00 2. The appellant has contended that the issue of liability to tax under "Commercial Training or Coaching Service" on the service rendered by a computer institute is no longer res integra and decided against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court is of no consequence except that it showed that there was a genuine ambiguity and confusion and therefore the extended period of limitation is not invokable making the demand of Rs. 71,50,372/- totally time-barred. He stated that it is also eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative strenuously argued that there was suppression of facts and the appellant did not mention the value of the exempted service and exemption Notification in the ST-3 returns. It also did not provide the information timely when asked in spite of protracted correspondence and in respect of demand of Rs. 71,50,372/- it provided the information after more than two years from the date it was sought. In response, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STAT held the same view and the same view was held by Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Doon Institute of Information Technology (supra) shows that the view held by the appellant was not unreasonable or hallucinatory. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant that it was actually under a bona fide belief that the impugned service tax was exempted during the period prior to the insertion of the proviso in Notification No.24/2004-ST vide Notification No.19/2005-ST, with effect from 16.06.2005 cannot be discarded as baseless or untenable. The contention that it did not mention the value of exempted service and the exemption Notification numbers in the ST-3 returns is not valid because during the relevant time, the ST-3 return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there was wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts. So, one has to distinguish between wilful non-supply of information and mere delay in furnishing the information. It has been repeatedly held by the judicial pronouncements that mere not telling is not tantamounting to suppression. As stated earlier, the appellant had good ground to have a reasonable belief that it was not liable to service tax prior to 16.06.2005. Thus, having regard to the overall circumstances, we are of the view that the allegation of wilful suppression of facts is not sustainable. Similar view was also been held by CESTAT in the case of Gargi Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2013 (32) str 654 (Tri.-Del.)]. As a consequence, the demand of Rs. 71,50,372/- is....