TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... department, the Appellant are providing taxable services to various recipients but are not discharging their service tax liability under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder. The department got to know about the transactions only after scrutiny of the TDS/ ITR data provided by the Income Tax Department. The information reveals that the appellant have received an amount of Rs. 7,06,91,528/- during the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 as consideration towards the provision of services made by them to their service recipients. According to revenue, on the basis of the data available with the department, it appears that the appellant were providing taxable services, but they neither paid the due service tax leviable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 17.10.2018 is issued raising demand on a ground by invoking extended period of limitation, issuance of second show cause notice dated 16.4.2019 on the same very issue by further invoking extended period of limitation is not maintainable; that the adjudication cannot be allowed to take place in a piecemeal manner; that both the show cause notices are barred by limitation and extended period could not have been invoked by the department since the department had complete knowledge of providing goods transport agency service (GTA) by the appellant way back in the year 2016 itself when the department issued a letter dated 29.1.2016 to the appellant on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, asking for the information ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the appellant and learned Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions. The learned counsel submits that the extended period has wrongly been invoked by the department and that both the show cause notices are liable to be quashed on this ground itself. According to learned counsel the department had complete knowledge of providing goods transport agency service (GTA) by the appellant way back in the year 2016 itself when the department issued a letter dated 29.1.2016 to the appellant on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, asking for the information of gross receipts for the F.Y. 2012-13 and the required information was submitted by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n relied upon by the appellant and in those cases it's GTA i.e. the appellant herein who is liable to pay service tax, therefore the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand of service tax in such transactions along with interest and penalty. 6. I will firstly deal with the objection of learned counsel regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the department. From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that the fact that the appellant is a goods transporter is within the knowledge of the department since January, 2016, when the department issued a letter dated 29.1.2016 to the appellant on the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, asking for the information of gross receipts for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant though has collected the service tax but not paid the same to the government. The demand confirmed in the impugned order pertains to GTA services provided by the appellant to the proprietorship concern because according to the authorities below, since the persons to whom GTA service was provided by the appellant were proprietorship concerns, Reverse Charge Mechanism is not applicable to them and the appellant is liable to pay service tax. The appellant disputed the demand since according to them, such proprietorship concerns are the factories registered under the Factories Act/ Rules and therefore as per section 68(2) of the Act r/w Notification 30/2012-ST dated 20.6.2012, the total service tax was payable by the recipient of the GTA s....