TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was noticed by the Revenue that there was some mismatch in the value declared by the appellant for the period 2014-15. It was also alleged by he Revenue that the appellant had not submitted any documents for the periods 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (April, 2017 to June, 2017). On the basis of the above verification conducted, the Department alleged that there was short payment of Service Tax to the tune of Rs.85,864/- (inclusive of cess) on the part of the appellant during the period 2014-15. 3. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020 was issued to the appellant demanding the Service Tax short paid amounting to Rs.85,864/-, along with interest and penalties, by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, C.G.S.T. & CX, Bishnupur Division vide the Order-in-Original No. 65/AC/CGST&CX/BPD/2023-24 dated 13.10.2023 wherein the above demand of Service Tax of Rs.85,864/-, along with interest, was confirmed against the appellant. The ld. adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.85,864/- under Section 78(1) along with a penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that the appellant had been asked to furnish the details before issuance of the Show Cause Notice vide letters dated 27.01.2020 and 12.02.2020; however, the appellant did not submit any information. Therefore, it is his stand that the demand has been rightly confirmed against the appellant by the lower authorities by invoking the extended period of limitation. He thus prays for rejecting the present appeal. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records produced before me. 8. I find that in this case, admittedly, the appellant has been registered with the Department and have been filing their S.T.-3 Returns regularly. The demand under dispute in the present case pertains to the period from April, 2014 to March, 2015. The Department had asked the appellant to submit the required data only vide letters dated 27.01.2020 and 12.02.2020 and issued the instant Show Cause Notice on 31.12.2020. It is pertinent to note that this is the period when the COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak. Therefore, the appellant cannot be found fault with for not submitting the details sought by the Department at that point of time. 9. In any c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax department in the year 2006 and have been filing their Returns. Accordingly, it is their submission that they have not suppressed any information from the Department and thus the extended period of limitation is not invokable. 12.1. In this regard, we observe that the Appellant had been filing their Returns and paying Service Tax regularly. They have registered with Service Tax Department since 2006, but till the date of audit conducted in 2011, the Department had not raised any objection regarding any short payment of Service Tax by the Appellant. We observe that the if the demand has been confirmed on the basis of the data submitted by the appellant, i.e., from their balance sheet, Profit & Loss Account and Form 26AS, then extended period of limitation is not invokable. We observe that this view has been held in various judicial pronouncements. 12.2. In the case of Arya Logistics v CCE & ST Rajkot [Service Tax Appeal No. 12389 of 2014], it has been held as under: "4. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides and perused the records. On going through the entire facts of the case we are of the view that the case can be di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilment of Cenvat Credit and payment of Service Tax on the abated value were declared in the ST-3 return. Hence, having all the facts were disclosed to the department, nothing prevented department from issue of show cause notice within normal period of one year. Therefore, the demand raised in the show cause notice is clearly time-barred. 4.3 Since the demand is not sustainable on limitation alone, we refrain from giving finding on merit of the case and the same is left open." 12.3. In the case of Balajee Machinery v Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Patna-II [2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 440 (Tri-Kolkata)], wherein it has been held as under: "10. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, we do not find any ingredient of fraud or suppression with an intent to evade payment of tax. In the case of Pappu Crane Services v. CCE, Lucknow (Final Order No. 71246 of 2019 in ST Appeal No. 70707 of 2018), the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal at Allahabad has held that where the demand is merely based on the data appearing in the Income Tax Portal, there cannot be said to any fraud or suppression so as to justify invocation of extended period of limitation. Therefore in the ....