TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Babu Lal Kushwaha is engaged in providing taxable branded services of retransmission of broadcast television signals received from their Multi System Operator [MSO] i.e. M/s DEN Ambey Cable Network Pvt. Ltd [M/s DEN], Kanpur and the benefit of threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was not available to them. Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 07.11.2019 was issued to the Appellant proposing as under:- i. The total (taxable) amount of Rs.23,48,364/- (Rs Twenty three lacs forty eight thousand three hundred sixty four only) received by the party from their customers during the F.Y. 2014-15 to F.Y. 2017-18 (upto June, 17) as shown in the table above for the relevant periods on account of the taxable services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of various provisions of the Act and the rules made there under as discussed supra. vi. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(c) of the Act ibid and read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for contravention of various provisions of the Act and the rules made there under as discussed supra. vii. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act ibid and read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for contravention of various provisions of the Act and the rules made there under as discussed supra. viii. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(e) of the Act ibid for contravention of various pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays of receipt of order. (iii) I confirm the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act on the amount as confirmed at (i) above. (iv) I do not impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) I also impose the penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77(1)(b) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 upon the party. (vi) I also impose the penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 77(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 upon the party. (vii) I do not impose the penalty under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 upon the party. (viii) I also impose the penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Section 77(1)(e) of the Act read wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir part regarding the tax liability under the said category. As already noted that they are not acting as a local cable TV operator in transmitting signals to the clients. Neither they are involved in receiving satellite signals as a MSO. The Finance Act, 1994 borrows the definitions of Cable operator' and 'Cable service' from Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. Considering scope of definition under Section 2(aa) of the said Act there is a possibility of bona fide belief for non-tax liability. Considering the ratio followed by the Tribunal in the abovementioned cases and also considering the facts of the present case, I find that it is a fit case for invoking the provision of Section 80 for waiver of penalties imposed on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appellant. From the submissions of the appellant, I find that it is not a case of suppression of facts, fraud or collusion, which would justify the invocation of the extended period. The appellant has duly reflected the receipt of the said amount which they had received from their service receivers in the income tax returns and the balance sheet which is a public document and accessible to the Revenue Authority. In fact, the case has been made against the appellant on the basis of the records of the income tax returns. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on series of decisions by the Tribunal as under: a. C.S.T., New Delhi Vs. Kamal Lalwani - 2017[49] S.T.R. 552 [Tri.-Del.] b. Shri Balaji Industrial P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly even when the entire activities are being reflected in the books of accounts. Accordingly, the demand was maintained only for the normal period. Reiterating the decision in the case of Balaji Machinery (supra), the Tribunal in the case of Antares Services Private Limited (surpa) held that where the demand is merely on the basis of data obtained from the Income Tax Department, it cannot be alleged that there was suppression, etc. on the part of the assessee. To justify the invocation of extended period, the settled principle of law is that once the declaration has been made with the Income Tax Department, there cannot be any suppression of facts and, therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Applying the above princi....