TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns is a proprietorship concern bearing service tax registration number AOLPS9646FST001 engaged in conducting conferences and exhibitions for various entities. Based on intelligence developed by DGGI, Surat zonal unit, search operations were carried out at the premises of the appellant during which it was found that the appellant had filed ST-3 returns for the period October 2014 to June 2017 but they had short declared their taxable value, as compared to their actual taxable value which had resultant in short payment of Service tax. Accordingly a detailed show cause notice dated 26th June 2020 was issued demanding service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,52,98,074/- along with interest for the period October 2014 to June 2017. In adjudication, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2022 (3) TMI 50 (ii) M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 96 (iii) Kush Constructions vs CGST NACIN 2019 (34) GSTL 606 6. Without prejudice to the above submission, he further submits that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case as the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. It is an admitted fact in the show cause notice that the appellant regularly filled Service Tax Return. The actions of the appellant are completely bonafide in nature and there is no question of any fraud, suppression or willful mis-statement in the facts of the present case. In support of his above submissions on merit as well as time bar, he placed reliance on the following j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority. We observe that since the invocation has been challenged, foremost, the plea of limitation has to be adjudicated. 9. We find that the Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with the recovery of service tax not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. According to which the recovery may be called for by the Central Excise Officer within the period of 30 months. However, the demand could be raised for a period beyond the said period of 30 months to the maximum of 5 years. But for the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. 10. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as suppression of fact, fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of Duty is not satisfied in the present case. We also find that levy of Service Tax in the facts of the present case involve interpretation of law and therefore, the Bonafide of the appellant cannot be doubted. Hence, the demand for extended period is not sustainable on limitation. We also find that appellant's contract of service is with Government Authority, hence there is no possibility to suppress their transaction evade Service Tax. Therefore, the bonafide of the appellant cannot be questioned. 11. Moreover, It is pertinent to note here that the 'the said disputed taxable value' has been duly and fully reflected in the appellants' books of ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. When the Revenue invokes the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 the burden is cast upon it to prove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be equated with a wilful misstatement. The latter implies making of any incorrect statement with the knowledge that the statement was not correct. 12. We also rely upon the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey are clearly qualified by the word "wilful" preceding the words "mis-statement or suppression of facts" which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words "contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or rules" are again qualified by the immediately following words "with intent to evade payment of duty". It is, therefore, not correct to say that there can be a suppression or mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground" for the purpose of the provision for invoking extended period of limitation. It was clarified that for going beyond the normal period of limitation while issuing show cause notice, mis-statement or suppression of fact must be wilful." 13. Now reverting to the facts....