TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide letter dated February 18, 2014, the Department called for a reply from the appellant to the audit objections. The appellant submitted the reply on February 21, 2014 and out of the seven objections, the appellant paid the service tax amount along with interest in respect of the demand under three categories, however, in respect of the remaining demands on 'room service charges', 'Mandap keeper service' and 'mini bar sale' and late fee as the appellant failed to file the ST3 Returns for the period, April 2011 to March 2013 by the due date and non-filing of ST3 Returns for the period April 2013 to September 2013, the appellant contested the same. Show cause Notice dated March 15, 2016 was issued to the appellant raising demand of Rs.3,21,088/- along with interest and penalty. As the appellant failed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority, an ex-parte order dated May 21, 2018 was passed, confirming the demands as proposed in the show cause notice. On appeal, the Commissioner once again confirmed the demand, however, penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 of the Act was dropped. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 2. Heard Shri Shubham Jaiswal, le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 09.12.2012 09.12.2013/09.06.2014 April 2012 to June, 2012 15.12.2012 15.06.2014 July, 2012 to Sep., 2012 03.05.2013 03.11.2014 October 2012 to March,2013 11.12.2013 15.06.2015 April 2013 to Sep., 2013 Not filed. Relevant date- 25.10.2013 25.04.2015 5. It is submitted that the appellant was supplying food and beverages along with accommodation services and in view of the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala there was confusion regarding taxability of food and beverages and the appellant under a bonafide belief excluded the tax on food and beverages and paid the tax on the balance portion treating it as services. In the circumstances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on the appellant. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative has reiterated the findings of the authorities below and submitted that the appellant wilfully suppressed the facts from the Department with intention to evade the payment of service tax and, therefore, invocation of extended period of limitation is justified. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Warsi Buildcon versus Principal Commissioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduced to the extent of 50%. In other words, the information on the basis of which the auditors proposed demands in the show cause notice were already disclosed in the statutory books of accounts and other documents maintained by the appellant. Therefore, all the materials was placed by the appellant for the Department to arrive at the correct service tax liability of the appellant and there was no reason to delay the issuance of the show cause notice. At the same time, it follows that there was no wilful intent on the part of the appellant to evade service tax. 8. In the case of P.P. Jewellers Vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & CGST Commissionerate, New Delhi Final Order No.50446-50447/2025 dated 28.03.2025, this Bench has considered the applicability of the extended period of limitation in similar circumstance, where the assessee fully co-operated in submitting all the documents and explaining the transactions with respect to their different units. The relevant paras of the decision are quoted below:- "25. The law on invoking the extended period of limitation has been settled over the period by various decisions of the Apex Court and other forums. The princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., W. P.( C) 7542 of 2018 dated 6.4.2023 the Delhi High Court observed that merely because MTNL had not declared the receipt of compensation as payment for taxable service does not establish that it had wilfully suppressed any material fact and therefore, no intent to avoid tax can be inferred by non- disclosure of the receipt in the service tax returns. 29. Following the aforementioned decisions and the dictum that mere suppression of facts is not enough, the Tribunal in a latest decision in M/s. Aglowmed Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Dehradun Excise Appeal NO.51902 of 2021 Final Order No. 50310 of 2025 dated 17.02.2025 , where the extended period of limitation was invoked for wrongly availing the benefit of the exemption notification held that the appellant had disclosed all the relevant facts and submitted all the relevant documents and therefore the show cause notice could have been issued within the normal period contemplated under section 11 A(1) of the Act. The appeal, was accordingly allowed on the sole ground that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts of the case. 30. The Madras High Court in Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n its records and when called for during investigation, provided full facts to the department based on which the SCN was issued and the appellant did not dispute the demands of service tax which he paid along with interest, even before the show notice was issued. Considering the conduct of the appellant during the investigation in providing all the information and paying the service tax with interest to the extent is not disputed has made out a case for seeking waiver of penalty by invoking Section 80. 32. Applying the ratio of the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Tiger Logistics and M/s Aglowmed, the conduct of the appellant in fully cooperating with the department and submitting all the requisite documents which the department called upon from time to time and further paying the excise duty latest by 28.11.2017, the show cause notice could have been issued within the normal period as per section 11 A(1) of the Act. Also, in the present case, it cannot be said that the facts were not known to the Department. Rather, the facts were known to both the parties and the appellant acted promptly in paying the excise duty on the basis of self assessment. Ho....