TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f service tax in view of the provisions of Section 67 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. I also uphold the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the appellant equal to re-determined/re-computed demand as ordered above. 3. I also uphold the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the appellant. 2.1 On the basis of intelligence an enquiry was conducted by the officers of Anti-Evasion Branch of Central Excise & Service Tax Commissionerate, Ghaziabad which revealed that the Appellants were evading payment of Service Tax on the taxable service under the category of "Renting of immovable property" & "Mandap Keeper/ Renting of Community Centre" provided by them 2.2 Appellants had also not got themselves registered under Service Tax law and neither filed Service Tax returns (ST-3) nor deposited Service Tax in respect of the taxable services being rendered by them. 2.3 A show cause notice dated 17.04.2013 was issued to them asking to show cause to the Additional Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad as to why: (i) Service Tax amounting to Rs 16,86,976/- payable on the amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1994, read with the provisions of Section 68, 69 &70 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. 2.5 Both the show cause notice were adjudicated as per the order in original referred in para 1 above, holding as follows: (i) I confirm the demand and recovery of Rs. 23,74,439/- ( Rs 16,86,976/- +Rs 6,87,463/-) (Rs Twenty Three Lac Seventy Four Thousand and Four Hundred Thirty Nine Only) towards Service Tax (including Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess) from M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) I order the charging and recovery of appropriate interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the above amount of confirmed demand from M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. (iii) I hereby impose penalty of Rs 23,74,439/- (Rs Twenty Three Lac Seventy Four Thousand and Four Hundred Thirty Nine Only)under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 upon M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad (iv) I hereby impose penalty of Rs 10,000/-(Rs Ten Thousand Only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act,1994 upon M/s Ghaziabad Develo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "I observe that as per the allegation made against the appellant, they provided taxable Renting of Immovable Property and Mandap Keeper Services during the year 2008-09 to 2012-13 without discharging their Service Tax liability. It has also been alleged that they neither got themselves registered under Service Tax law nor filed Service Tax returns (ST- 3) in respect of the taxable services rendered by them as mentioned above. The Appellant's contention that the impugned order has confirmed a vague SCN wherein charge on Appellant was not set out is not correct as in both Show Cause Notices the charges/ allegations have, been very well elaborated supported by the appropriate provisions of Service Tax law. The Appellant also contended that they have received an amount of Rs. 5,55,000/- during the period 2008-2012, which were purely towards religious activities such as holding of kirtan, jagrans, satsang, organizing poojas etc., and these amounts are not taxable under the category of Mandap Keeper service as religious functions cannot be considered as any official, social or business function. I find that there is no evidence available on case record whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a municipal or local fund • A Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 • A regional council or a district council constituted under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution • A development board constituted under article 371 of the Constitution, or • A regional council constituted under article 371A of the Constitution Therefore, local bodies constituted by a State or Central Law are not local authorities in view of the aforesaid definition Therefore, I hold that M/s Ghaziabad Development Authority did not fall under any of the above categories as per the provisions of Service Tax Law and thus they are not entitled to exemption granted under the mega Exemption Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 The Appellant's contention that there is no suppression of facts by them as their activities were all in public domain and it was carried out in open is also not tenable as they failed to declare to the department that they are providing taxable service. They neither got themselves registered with the department nor paid any service tax as well as filed their Service tax re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndered by the Appellant are covered under the Service tax net within the definition of 'Renting of immovable property' and Mandap keeper and they are liable to pay Service-tax on the amount as adjudged in the impugned order under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest at appropriate rate under Section 75 ibid. The appellant also rendered themselves liable for penal action Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 Further, for the determination of liability of service tax, the appellant also claimed that in any case amount received towards renting/hire is to be treated as cum tax price in view of the provisions of Section 67 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that there is no evidence to the fact that the appellant has received the Service Tax amount from the tenant/clients hence amount received from Renting of Immovable Property service shall be taken as cum tax price in view of the provisions of Section 67 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 Accordingly, I hereby direct the adjudicating authority/jurisdictional Divisional officer to re-determine the service tax liability allowing benefit of cum Tax price as stated above." 4.3 One of the ground fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble High Court as per the order referred in Para 4.3 above we find that on issue of limitation and Penalties, Delhi Bench has observed as follows: 14. Whether for demand of Service Tax extended period of 5 years from the relevant date under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 would be invokable and whether penalty would be imposable on the Appellant under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. "14.1 In terms of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994, where any tax has not been levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the central excise officers may within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the Service Tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short levied or short paid or the person to whom such tax has been erroneously refunded requiring him to show case as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the show cause notice. The term, "relevant date" is defined in sub-section (6) of the Section 73. With effect from 28-5-2012, the normal limitation period has been enhanced to 18 months. In terms of proviso to Section 73(1) wherever Service Tax has not been levied or paid or short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Board on an issue, there is scope for doubt, the extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable. In our view, the ratio of the above judgments of the Apex Court would be applicable while interpreting the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. In this case, the appellant is a body corporate of the Government of Uttar Pradesh for performing statutory functions in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and one of its functions is the allotment of vacant land to various persons for industrial or residential purposes on long term lease basis. In our view, there is merit in the appellant's plea that they were under bona fide belief that the allotment of vacant land to various persons on long term lease basis for construction of building for industrial purposes, would not attract Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz). Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, in our view, longer limitation period of 5 years from the relevant date would not be applicable and the Service Tax demand would survive only for the normal period of one year from the relevant date, which would be quantif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector, Central Excise, (1965) 6 G.L.R. 137. If the authority has incorrectly mentioned in the order a portion of the section, no prejudice is caused to the person liable to make the payment and the court would not strike down such an order for that reason only. It has been observed in that decision that the court would look at the substance rather than mere form and if it finds that the order has been made with jurisdiction though there is an error in citing a particular part of the section and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, the court would not interfere and set aside the order. The learned District Judge thus allowed the appeal before him and set aside the decree of the trial court. It is against this decision that this second appeal is directed. Mr. K. S. Nanavaty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant plaintiff, has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by this court in 6 G.L.R. 137. His only contention is that the finding of the learned District Judge that the duty has escaped payment due to error of misconception or exemption notification is not supported by any evidence inasmuch as the Inspector who had been alleged to have co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he expression 'levy' in Rule 10 means actual collection of some amount. The charging provision Section 3 (1) specifically says "There shall be levied and collected in such a manner as may be prescribed the duty of excise......". It is to be noted that sub-section (1) uses both the expressions "levied and collected" and that clearly shows that the expression "levy" has not been used in the Act or the Rules as meaning actual collection. Dr. Syed Mohammad is, no doubt, well founded in his contention that if the appellants have power to issue notice either under Rule 10-A or Rule 9 (2) the fact that the notice refers specifically to a particular rule, which may not be applicable, will not make the notice invalid on that ground as has been held by this Court in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCR 418 (AIR 1970 SC 1173) : "If the exercise of a power can be traced to a legitimate source, the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under different power does not vitiate the exercise of the power in question. This is a well settled proposition of law. In this connection reference may usefully be made to the decisions of this court in B. Balakotaiah v. Un....