TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant is registered under the jurisdiction of Range-III of Behala Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate, for rendering the services of promotion or marketing of brands, services, events and other taxable services. The appellant has been paying Service Tax and submitting ST-3 Returns up to 30.06.2017 and thereafter, the appellant has been paying tax as applicable under the G.S.T. regime, in respect of the said services. 3. On the basis of comparison between the Form 26AS statement received from the Income Tax Department and the ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant, during the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2020 was issued, demanding Service Tax of Rs.18,27,426/- (inclusive of Cess) for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015 by invoking the extended period of limitation, being the differential service tax payable as observed from the ITR / Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns filed by the appellant during the said period. The allegation of the Revenue is that the appellant has wilfully suppressed the above differential taxable value with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax. 3.1. Subsequently, another Show Cause Notice dated 28.12.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inted to the fact that the appellant has been filing their ST-3 Returns regularly and all transactions were duly reflected in the books of accounts, balance sheet, ITR and TDS statements, all of which were available with the Department; that no positive act of suppression or conceal of material facts on the part of the appellant has been established by the Revenue. Thus, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that without adequate verification as to the nature of services and without undertaking any independent inquiry into the nature of transactions, suppression of facts cannot be alleged against the appellant so as to justify invocation of the extended period. Accordingly, the appellant contends that the impugned demands are barred by limitation and thus, liable to be set aside. In support of their contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant have relied on the following decisions in their favour: - i. Balajee Machinery v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Excise, Patna-II [2022 (8) TMI 704 - CESTAT, Kolkata=2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 440 (Tri. - Kol.)] ii. Ripley & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolkata [2025 (8) TMI 572 - CESTAT,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 Returns and Form 26AS Statements / ITR for the said periods. It is a well settled law that solely by relying on CBDT data and without conducting any independent investigation to establish the taxability of the said services, demands cannot be raised against an assessee, as has been held in a catena of decisions on the issue. I also do not find that any evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that the appellant has indulged in any activity amounting to suppression or wilful mis-statement. It is also a fact on record that the appellant has been filing their ST-3 Returns regularly and all transactions were duly reflected in their books of accounts, balance sheet, ITR and TDS statements, which were available with the Revenue. In fact, during the course of audit, all the relevant documents were produced by the appellant and the same were scrutinized by the audit officers. Therefore, I find that the allegation of suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of Service Tax has not been substantiated in this case. Thus, I find merit in the contention of the appellant that the ingredients required for attracting the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, in our view, the demand raised for the period up to March, 2015 is completely barred by limitation and accordingly the demand is set aside. Further, since there is no element of fraud or suppression, we are of the view that the entire penalty amount is liable to be set aside." 8.2. The same view has also been expressed in the case of Ripley & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolkata [2025 (8) TMI 572 - CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein the Bench has observed as follows: - "7. Regarding invocation of extended period of limitation to confirm the demand, it is observed that in this case, the period of demand relates to the financial year 2009-10 but the Show Cause Notice has been issued only on 21.04.2014. Further, we take note of the fact that the Show Cause Notice has been issued on the basis of Audit Report in the year 2010 when all the documents were produced by the appellant and the same were scrutinized by the audit officers. Thus, it is evident that there is no suppression of fact with intention to evade payment of Service Tax on the part of the appellant established in this case, for invoking the extended period of limitation. Accordingly, we....