AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CESTAT was correct in holding that the extended period cannot be invoked as stipulated in proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 especially when the fact of rendering of taxable service by the Respondent came to the notice of the Appellant while conducting Audit of the books and accounts of a third party and Respondent's liability for payment of Service Tax could be determined only after further enquiry, whereas the Respondent had failed to obtain Registration or pay Service Tax ?" 2. Thereafter, on the respondents filing cross objection, the maintainability of which was objected by the appellant, this Court framed the following additional substantial question of law on 22-3-2018 : "Whether the cross-objection filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1-4-07 to 31-3-08 12493000 12.36% 1499160 29983/14992 Total 56396000 6433780 120051/14992 4. A show notice was issued to the respondent on 8-7-2008 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 65,68,823/- (including cess) under Section 73 of the Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act, 1944 and for imposition of penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, 1944. 5. Upon adjudication, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Raipur, passed an order-in-original on 15-1-2009 confirming the demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 50,58,361/- (including cess) along with interest, but dropped the demand of service tax prior to the period 16-6-2005. Penalty under Section 76 was also waived but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the CESTAT committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by disallowing the service tax for the extended period. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/CSIDC, per contra, would argue that the present is not a case of wilful supression of fact nor there was any intent to evade the service tax because the CSIDC being a Government undertaking it was under bona fide impression that it is not liable to pay service tax. Learned counsel would refer to the circular No.89/7/2006-ST dated 18-12-2006 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that the fees collected by public authorities while performing statutory functions/duties under the provisions of a law is exempted from payment of service tax. 10. Countering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty. When facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppression. There must be some positive act from the side of the assessee to find willful suppression. Therefore, in view of our findings made herein above that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellant not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty, it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities that there was any deliberate attempt of nondisclosure to escape duty, no claim as to "suppression of facts" could be entertained for the purpose of invoking the extended period of limitation within the meaning of proviso to Section 11A of the Act. 13. In the case at hand also, the CSIDC is an entity under the control of the Government of Chhattisgarh. It does not belong to an individual who would evade tax to corner profit in its business activity. The explanation putforth by the CSIDC that it was under bona fide impression that being an entity under the control of Government it was not liable to pay service tax appears to be reasonable explanation, therefore, mere non registration under Section 65 or non payment of service tax o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld thus in para 52 : "52. Under section 116C of the Representation of the People Act the procedure in an appeal is that subject to the provisions of the Act and of the Rules, if any, made thereunder every appeal shall be heard and determined by this Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the hearing and determination of an appeal from the final order passed by a High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Courts shall as far as possible apply in relation to such appeal. There are no rules of this Court which have any bearing on this matter. The provisions contained in Order 41, R. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are a....