TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n process and to verify stipulated documents etc. M/s (n) Code Solutions was certifying authority under Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 to provide "Digital Signature Certificates‟. It appeared to revenue that the said work undertaken by the appellant as per agreement entered into with M/s (n) Code Solutions was Business Support Service. Therefore, appellant were issued with a show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 raising a demand of Rs. 8,95,603/- of Service Tax, alleging that the appellants were providing Business Support Service and the said fact was not brought to the knowledge of Department and the demand was for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11. On contest the demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. The matter was carried before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned Order-in-Appeal has held that the activity was falling under the Support Service of Business of Commerce" and therefore, did not interfere with the Original Adjudicating Authorities confirmation of demand and imposition to penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned brother, I find myself in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by him as regards the merits of the case. However, as learned brother has held that "We left Time Bar aspect open", I have different views, inasmuch as every issue raised before the Tribunal are required to be dealt with, especially when the demand is being upheld on merits and the time bar issue cannot be left open as it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal, which is the last fact finding body to deal with the said aspect of time bar. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the said plea of the assessee. 2. Admittedly, the demand has been raised for the period 2008-09 to 2010-11 by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 18.10.2012. The said demand raised against the assessee is based upon the audit conducted in their organization and all the figures have been picked up from the balance sheet and also the invoices issued by the assessee. The appellants have assailed the demand on the aspect of time bar by submitting as under before the Commissioner (Appeals):- "That we had bonafidely accounted for the purchase of Digital Signature and e token further whenever the said goods sold the same is also accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod would not be applicable. Appellants have reflected their entire activity in their statutory documents required to be maintained by them in the ordinary course of their business and there was enough reason for the appellant to entertain a bona fide belief that the services rendered by them are not covered by the port services. The Tribunal held that extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. To the similar effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Stag Software reported as 2008 (10) STR 329 (Tri.-Bang.) laying down that there was no ground for invoking longer period in demanding the service tax, as the allegation of suppression with intention to evade payment of tax has not been clearly established. 3. As against the above pleas raised by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals), as regards the demand being barred by limitation, he has simplicitor observed as under:- "On the issue of imposition of penalty of Rs. 9,98,000/- upon the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, I find that the appellant had not disclosed the value of the taxable service "Support Service of Business or Commerce" Falling under Section 65 (105) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Certify Authority. They have also contended that all the related documents like audited balance sheet was submitted with the other taxation authorities like Income Tax. If there would have been any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, they would not have maintained all the statutory documents like balance sheet and would not have filed the same with their Income Tax authorities. The said Act of the appellant admittedly leads to their bona fide and in the absence of any positive evidence to establish any mala fide, it has to be held that they were entertaining a bona fide belief that the activities undertaken by them were not taxable. The said stand of the appellant stands duly supported by the decisions relied upon by them before Commissioner (Appeals) and referred in his order, which have not been adverted to by the Appellant Authority. 7. Otherwise also I find that the issue is complex in nature and involves interpretation of the legal provisions. The law was not clear during the relevant period and in fact the appellants have referred to various precedent decisions of the Tribunal in support of their case on merits that such services being sovereign activity wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision : 08/02/2019 Per: V. Padmanabhan, The present appellant has challenged the levy of service tax along with interest and penalty. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), in her Order-In-Appeal has upheld the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty. The Regular Bench heard the appellant and considered the issue. Both the Members of the Bench concurred in their views that the demand for service tax confirmed by the first Appellate Authority is required to be upheld, on merit. However, there was difference of opinion on the connected issue of time bar. The learned Member (Technical), in his order dated 07.08.2018 expressed to the view that the time bar aspect may be left open, however, in the separate order passed by the Hon‟ble Member (Judicial) while concurring with the findings of the learned Member (Technical) on merit, proceeded to decide the issue of time bar also. The learned Member (Judicial) was of the view that the time bar issue cannot be kept open but is required to be decided. In her separate order dated 12.09.2018, learned Member (Judicial) held that....