TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Pukur, Kolkata - 700 026 [hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant'] has been issued a Show Cause Notice on 27.09.2019 inter alia demanding Service Tax of Rs.22,10,162/- on the allegation that the Appellant has short paid Service Tax on 'construction of residential complex service' during the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017). 2. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Ballygunge Division, Kolkata South C.G.S.T. and C.X. Commissionerate, Kolkata vide Order-in-Original No. 27/AC/Skyline/Ballygunge Div/Kol-South/CGST & CX/2021/3597 dated 16.08.2021 wherein the ld. adjudicating authority confirmed the following demands, along with interest and penalty: - a. Regarding Service Tax liability of Rs. 4,90,02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs.4,68,364/- confirmed on advances received, the Appellant submits that such advances received from the customers pertained to three units, out of which the advance in respect of one unit was received after issuance of the completion certificate dated 08.03.2016. For the remaining two units, it is submitted that the Service Tax liability was duly discharged on the amount received before issuance of the completion certificate. 4.1. Further, the Appellant submits that an advance of Rs.71,00,000/- received during the Financial Year 2012-13 and carried forward in the year 2013-14, has been included while computing the Service Tax demand against the Appellant. It is pointed out that in the impugned order, the ld. appellate authority has hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate authority in the impugned order. Thus, it is their contention that this demand has also been raised beyond the period of thirty months from the date of filing of the Return and accordingly, this demand is also barred by limitation of time. 4.3. Accordingly, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the above demands confirmed in the impugned order. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submits that the Appellant did not file its ST-3 Return in time; that the Appellant had filed the Return for the earlier period on 13.01.2017 which is beyond the due date prescribed under the statute. It is his contention that the advances received by the Appellant were not disclosed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entire demand confirmed in the impugned order is hit by the bar of limitation. 7.1. Since the Department has not brought any evidence on record to establish the intention to evade payment of tax on the part of the Appellant in the instant case, we hold that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. We observe that this view has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Maa Kalika Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Rourkela [2023 (79) G.S.T.L. 263 (Tri. - Kolkata)]wherein it has been observed as under: - "20. Regarding invocation of extended period to demand service tax, the Appellant stated that there is no suppression of fact involved in this case. The departm....