2017 (7) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h 2005, it was noticed by the Revenue authorities that the respondent had not discharged the service tax liability under the head air travel agency service. A show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 was issued for demand by invoking extended period. The respondents herein did not file any reply to the show-cause notice nor he did appear before the adjudicating authority during adjudication proceedings. The adjudicating authority after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the tax liability needs to be confirmed and accordingly he confirmed the liability along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after follo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I do not see any reason to interfere with penalties under Section 76 & 78 of the above act. 3. Learned DR submits that the first appellate authority has erred in coming to the above conclusion inasmuch the respondent has not discharged any tax liability from July 2001 despite being registered with the authorities. It is also his submission that the show-cause notice issued for the period July 1997 to June 2001 by invoking the extended period is not invoked in the current show-cause notice. It is his submission that the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on the decision of the Nizam Sugar Factory and Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable in the case in hand and is totally distinguishable in the facts of the case. He w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ord that the respondent had not filed any returns for the period July 1997 to June 2001 as also for subsequent period. This fact can be noticed from the paragraph 6 in the Order-in-Original wherein Shri M.M. Shoeb Qureshi, Managing Director in his statement dt. 24/10/2005 has agreed that they have not filed any ST3 returns for the period in question in this appeal. In the absence of any returns filed with the Revenue authorities, Revenue authorities will not be able to ascertain whether tax liability is correctly discharged or otherwise, and hence in our view the show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 is correctly invoking the extended period for demand of tax. 6. Secondly we find that the second show-cause notice dt. 08/12/2005 is issued for ....