TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the appellant is engaged in rendering taxable services under the category of 'Construction of Residential Complex Service'. A show-cause notice dt. 02/11/2016 was issued to the appellant for the period from April 2013 to March 2015. After following the due process, the matter was adjudicated and demand of Rs. 30,02,528/- vide Order-in-Original dt. 23/08/2017 was confirmed. Appellant filed appeal against the said order after making predeposit of Rs. 2,30,000/- before the Commissioner(Appeals). The learned Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand for the normal period. Subsequently appellant filed a claim for refund of predeposit of Rs. 2,30,000/- before the Assistant Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it". Further in para 36, it is held that "It would also be pertinent to mention that assessment creates a vested right and an assessee cannot be subjected to reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective". He also cites the decision of Four Judges Bench in the case of Govinddas & ors., etc. Vs. Income Tax officer & Another [1977 AIR 552, 1976 SCR (3) 44], wherein it was held that Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act to be prospective and inapplicable for any assessment year prior to 1st April, 1962. Since the amendment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice was issued on 02/11/2016 extending period from 18 months to 30 months for issuing the show-cause notice and therefore the Revenue has rightly invoked the period to 30 months for confirming the demand of service tax for the period 2014-15. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the normal period of limitation of 18 months to be applied or 30 months to be applied for demanding service tax for the period 2014-15 when the show-cause notice is issued after 14/05/2016. Further I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aveco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. cited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 which had already become time-barred could not have been confirmed by the Commissioner by applying the amended period of two years. The fact that the Notice had been issued on 8-11-2016, by which time the limitation period had increased to two years, could not give the Revenue an authority to revive and resurrect demands which had already become dead before the amendment. To do so, would be to give the amended provision a retrospective effect which the Legislature did not do while bringing in the amendment. It is a settled law that any statutory amendment is prospective in its operation unless it is specifically declared to have retrospective operation. The Finance Act, 2016 does not contain any provision according to a retrospective ope....