TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2017
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rief which culminated in to the said order are as follows: 1.1 Shri Anil Gaur, the appellant herein, is registered for providing the taxable services under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Department observed that during the period from April 2016 to June 2017, the appellant had received Rs.17,53,015/- as commission for rendering the said services which are neither covered under the negative list of the services as specified in the Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 nor are covered in Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. Hence, the appellant was liable to pay service tax on the said amount of commission but the appellant has not paid the same. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 16/21/-22 dated 07.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that appellant have made the submissions, although belatedly and therefore, has complied with his legal duties. Appellant is merely a commission agent, not an expert of tax laws. Omissions which later got rectified are wrongly alleged to be willful misrepresentation and suppression of facts for committing evasions. 3.1 It is also submitted that appellant is squarely covered by the decision of divisional bench order of this Tribunal in in the matter of Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate Vs. M/s. Haamid Real Estate Private limited having service tax Appeal No. 52273 of 2018 with service tax cross no.51100 of 2018. 3.2 While submitting on merits, Learned counsel relied upon the settled l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that the department was never aware of the activity being carried out by the appellant in Financial Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017) due to the fact that the appellant failed to provide requisite details despite being was repeatedly requested by the department. Therefore, the contention of the appellant does not hold ground. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision in the case of Warsi Buildcon Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax reported as (2024) 17 Centax 37 (Tri.-Del.) and has prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the record, since the appellant has vehemently alleged, the show cause notice to be barred by time, I foremos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97 dated 15.11.2017, 317 dated 27.11.2017, 341 dated 04.12.2017, 374 dated 19.12.2017, dated 10.01.2018, 66 dated 23.01.2018, 122 dated 15.02.2018, 201 dated 05.03.2018, 14.03.2018, 292 dated 08.05.2012, 349 dated 21.05.2018 and the summons dated 28.09.2018, dated 13.12.2018, 04.02.2019, 28.03.2019, 04.07.2019 and 12.02.2020 requested Shri Anil Gaur, The service provder to submit the details of service provided the during the period from 01.04.2016 30.06.2017. (v) The service providers neither provided the above cited details sought nor furnished any written submissions in the matter. Letter dated 06.04.2021 provided a copy of Profit and Loss Account for the Financial Year 2016-17, 26-AS for the Financial Year 2016-17 and 26-AS for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, as there is a suppression of facts." 7. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hakim Singh Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Alwar vide Final Order No. 51645/2023 dated 16.11.2023 has held that when there is no response of the assessee nor even the reply to show cause notice and no explanation for delayed response. The assessee cannot plead that show cause notice has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. In the decision relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative in Warsi Buildcon (supra), it has been held that: "Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty is justified when assessee although working ....