TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 812
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icting the demand only for normal period without discussion and finding with regard to culpability of the respondent? 2. It would be appropriate to notice at this juncture itself that question No.1 being co-related to question Nos.2 and 3, appeal came to be admitted. In other words, there is no need or necessity to answer question No.1 distinctly as it would be covered while answering question Nos.2 and 3. 3. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal can be crystallized as under: 3.1 Respondent is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is engaged in providing services to industrial entrepreneurs interested in industrial investment in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the medium and large scale sector from the stage of investment proposal to the eventual implementation of the project. The respondent is an investment promotion and facilitation agency of the Government of Karnataka for grant of approvals and sanction of infrastructure facilities for the approved projects. 4. Based on the intelligence input gathered by the officers of the appellant, issued a show-cause notice to the respondent on 20.04.2012 alleging thereunder tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case papers and find that Tribunal, after examining the Order-in-Original, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that services rendered by the respondent would fall within the definition of Section 65(105(r) of the Act inasmuch as the services rendered by the respondent is a business consultancy service which would partake its character from the definition as per definition clause. Since respondent is engaged in providing service either directly or indirectly in connection with the management of any organization or business, said activity would fall within the four corners of 'management or business consultancy service'. Hence, it is taxable service as per the provisions of the Act. It is because of this activity carried out by the respondent, Tribunal has rightly held that the definition is to be construed as inclusive definition and any service provided in connection with the management or business consultancy is liable to tax. Finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard reads as under: "4. It was the submission of the learned counsel xxx xx xxx Management or Business Consultancy Service. The inclusive portion coming the thereafter can be considered as an expansion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words thirty months, the words "five years" had been substituted. Explanation: Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of thirty months or five years, as the case may be." 9. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 73 would indicate that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the officer within 30 days from the relevant date can serve a notice on the person chargeable with such service tax requiring him to show-cause why he should pay the amount specified in the notice. In other words, in the event of contingencies prescribed under sub-section (1) were to arise, the Central Excise Officer has to initiate proceedings to recover such amount within 30 months from the relevant date. However, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 provides for extended period of limitation namely, for a period of 5 years. Said extended period of limitation can be invoked w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mens rea on the part of the respondent. Until and unless it is indicated or alleged in the show cause notice there was willful mis-statement or suppression of fact on the part of respondent-assessee, non-payment of tax would not fall within the definition of 'wilful mis-statement' or 'suppression of fact', so as to attract the extended period of limitation as indicated in proviso to sub-section (1) of section 73 of the Finance Act. In other words, intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of tax is to be gathered from the contents of show-cause notice or any other attendant circumstances. It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any straight jacket formula prescribed in this regard. In fact, initial burden is on the revenue to establish or prove that ingredients prescribed under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act are present. In the absence of this fact, invoking of extended period of limitation would be impermissible. 12. In the light of aforestated discussion, when facts on hand are examined, we find that show-cause notice which came to be issued to respondent - assessee was based on intelligence input gathered....