TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. At the outset, the Ld. A R points out that the appellant has filed the appeal before Commissioner belatedly, much beyond the condonable period. Hence, he justifies the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Order In Original has been sent by Speed Post and delivery of the same is also confirmed. Therefore, he submits the arguments about the delayed serving of OIO by the appellant may not be entertained by the Bench. Further details are being dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs. 3. The Ld Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the OIO dated 29.01.2024 was not served on them. They came to know about this order, only when the recovery notice e mail was received by them. After that, the appellant has written a letter seeking time and they have received the true copy of the OIO on 28.01.2025. Thereafter they have filed their appeal on 10.02.2025, well within the two month's period available for such appeal. Therefore, he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delayed filing. He submits that the appellant has a st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration, the details of the contract awarded to the appellant is as per the following Table, which is also admitted in the OIO 8. The total value of the above four contracts is Rs.2,72,93,241. It can be observed that all the contracts are towards providing electricity street lights for the public welfare. These Contracts have been awarded between January 2016 to July 2016. It is also pointed out that arbitrarily on assumption basis the turnover for the period 2017-18 (April to June 2017) was taken @ Rs.81,87,972 by taking the total turnover of 2016-17 and working out for one quarter and adding further 20% to arrive at this figure. It is vehemently submitted that there is no such provision to arrive at the value on such assumptions basis. However, he fairly concedes that this arbitrariness was noticed by the Adjudicating authority who had reduced this figure of Rs.81,87,972 to Rs.15,98,822 by taking the actual 26 AS figures. The Adjudicating authority had noted that the appellant has provided the service which is in the nature of Works Contract, involving supply of goods as well as the service. Accordingly, on the total turnover, he has worked out the re-quantified figure of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand is, on this footing, barred by limitation under Section 73(1). The appellant relies on Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 31 taxmann.com 67 (SC) (burden of proving suppression is on the Department); Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, (2005) 188 ELT 149 (SC); CCE, Aurangabad v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., (2010) 260 ELT 17 (SC); and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, (1995) 74 ELT 9 (SC). The confirmed demand of Rs. 17,33,523/- relates to the very periods that are thus barred by limitation and he submits that the demand is liable to be set aside in its entirety on the ground of limitation. 12. The Ld A R has submitted further written submissions on 22.06.2026, taking a strong preliminary objection towards the very maintainability of the Appeal before the Tribunal. At Para 6 of this submission, he has reiterated the Para 5 of the OIA stating as to how the OIO was served on the appellant and why the appeal filed was time barred. He has also pointed out that the address mentioned in the SCN, OIO and OIA is the same throughout. Hence, the appellant's submission that they have not received the OIO cannot be entertained. He has further submitted that the merits of the demand i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss. It is seen that at the time hearing before the High Court, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has not raised any objection to the appellant's submission that the OIO was sent the old address. Once High Court is seized of the matter and an order has been passed without any objection being made by Revenue and considered, making such a submission before the Tribunal at this juncture, does not carry the Revenue's case any further is precluded from up this issue. The decision taken by the High Court is required to be honoured by the Tribunal. Taking up this issue at stage by the Tribunal would amount to sitting on the judgement of the High Court's order, which cannot be and should not be done by the Bench. Therefore, I refrain from considering the submissions in this regard made by the Ld AR. 18. I also notice that in the SCN at para 8.1 it is stated as under : 8.1 The address of the service provider, M/s Mahalakshmi Enterprises, could be procured from the GST Portal. The Officers of the Mahboobnagar Range personally visited the address and learnt that the service provider was not available. 19. I have gone through the relevant Para 5 of the OIA, which is rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash Nagar, Railway Station Road, Mahbubnagar-509001 [ the SCN and OIO have been despatched to this address]. Hence, considering the above factual details, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant's submissions. It is also on record that before the Hon'ble High Court, no objection no objection was raised by the Revenue on this issue about old address vis-à-vis new address. 21. It is also on record that the Revenue sent a recovery notice e mail on 20.01.2025 to the appellant, which is reproduced below: 22. The appellant has sent his response on 22nd January 2025, which is reproduced below: 23. After this, the appellant claims that a True Copy of the OIO has been granted on 28.05.2025. I have gone through the OIO and find that Advocate J N Chetty has signed this OIO as 'TC'. Therefore, the appellant's submission that this OIO has been received by him on 28.05.2025, is required to be considered when all the factual details are analyzed and viewed together. 24. The Hon'ble High Court at Para 5 of the Order dated 15.09.2025, has directed the Tribunal to consider all the issues raised on the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal is authorized to go into the factua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the High Court, it is observed that that Tribunal has been granted the liberty to go into the factual details. Therefore, the Ld. AR is in error in taking the above stand. Further his assumption that this Bench would be swayed by the merits of the case while deciding the issue of delay or otherwise before the Commissioner (Appeals), is clearly misplaced. Such assumption resulting in questioning the competence / fairness of the Bench is not appreciated by the Bench. 30. From the Tables given at para 6 and 7 above, it gets clarified the service undertaken by the appellant is only towards the street light installation and commissioning in various villages as per the orders given by Panchayats / Local authorities. The relevant portion of the exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012 is extracted below: "12A. Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of - (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by general public. 16.5 Now I will focus to the point whether the assessee is eligible to avail Exemption under Notification No. 25/2012 25/2012-ST Dt.20.06.2012. To examine this we need to look at the relevant clauses of Notification No.25/2012St Dt. 20.06.2012(as amended). In Clause S.No.12A of the Notification No.25/2012-ST, reads as "Services provided to the Government, a local authority or a government authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, or alteration of - (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession;..." As per this clause the service provider should render services to the Government or to a local authority, in the instant case the assessee have rendered service to the Panchayath Raj Department of Telangana State. The assessee should have constructed a civil Structure or undertaken any original works meant predominantly for use other that for commerce, industry or any other business or profession. In the instant case, they have provided Electrical Stree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: PROVIDED that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words "one year", the words "five years" had been substituted." "73(6) For the purpose of this section, "relevant date" means,- (i) In the case of taxable service in respect of which service tax has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Q2 FY 2016-17 (Jul-Sep 2016) 28.04.2022 29,99,277 3 Q3 FY 2016-17 (Oct-Dec 2016) 25.04.2017 24.04.2022 28.04.2022 79,47,363 Beyond 5 years 4 Q4 FY 2016-17 (Jan-Mar 2017) 28.04.2022 19,48,763 5 Q1 FY 2017-18 (Apr-Jun 2017) 15.08.2017 14.08.2022 28.04.2022 15,98,822 Within 5-yr period only Total turnover 2,88,92,063 39. In respect of SI No. 1 to 4, covering the period 2016-2017, the Show Cause Notice issued on 28.04.2022 is clearly time-barred, ab initio. Out of the confirmed demand of Rs.17,33,523, the demand of Rs.16,37,594 is for the period 2016-17.TheRevenue could not have issued the SCN for this period by invoking the extended period provisions. Therefore, on this ground itself the confirmed demand of Rs.16,37,594 gets set aside. 40. Coming to the balance demand of Rs.95,929 for the short period of April to June 2017, the appellant having provided to the Panchayats the service of Street Light installation, could have held Bonafide belief that no Service Tax is payable, being covered under the Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012. The amendments carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, while dealing with the meaning of the expression "suppression of facts" in proviso to Section 11A of the Act held that the term must be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission and the act must be deliberate and willful to evade payment of duty. The Court, further, held :- "In taxation, it ("suppression of facts") can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression." 27. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462], we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty. When facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is settled law that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lysing ITR-TDS data received from Income Tax, a reconciliation statement has to be sought from the taxpayer for the difference and whether the service income earned by them for the corresponding period is attributable to any of the negative list services specified in Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 or exempt from payment of Service Tax, due to any reason. It was further reiterated that demand notices may not be issued indiscriminately based on the difference between the ITR-TDS taxable value and the taxable value in Service Tax Returns. 3. It is once again reiterated that instructions of the Board to issue show cause notices based on the difference in ITR-TDS data and service tax returns only after proper verification of facts, may be followed diligently. Pr. Chief Commissioner /Chief Commissioner (s) may devise a suitable mechanism to monitor and prevent issue of indiscriminate show cause notices. Needless to mention that in all such cases where the notices have already been issued, adjudicating authorities are expected to pass a judicious order after proper appreciation of facts and submission of the noticee.' 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue the SCN for the extended period is to be reckoned from the specified date of filing [as given in the statute] in terms of Section 73(6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act. Therefore, the confirmed demand for 2016-17 gets set aside as time barred on this ground itself. (d) The factual details show that the Works Contract service has been rendered in respect of the work orders issued by Panchayats [Local authorities] for installing Street Lighting in the villages. Bonafide belief about applicability of exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012 could have been entertained by the appellant, which is fortified by the fact that no Service Tax was collected by him. (e) No case of suppression has been made out with cogent evidence by the Revenue. Mere reliance of Form 26AS and I T Returns, without any back-up evidence, is not sufficient to fasten the liability of extended period demand. (f) Relying on the case laws cited and discussed, the entire confirmed demand is being set aside on account of time-bar. 47. The appeal stands allowed. The appellant would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Pronounced in open court on 02.07.2026)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion as part of this mail. Any use, reuse, review, retransmission, dissemination, paraphrasing, distribution or other uses o f the in formation https:/mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0ef5c178e1&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:18687760725RAR701038simnl=men f-18687760725699. Document 4 GSTIN :36AAVFM8453A2ZY MAHALAXMI ENTERPRISES HOUSE OF LED LIGHTS Suppliers of COSMO, OSRAM, MEGAGLOW LED LIGHTS. Regd. Office:1-6-66/1/G, Subash Nagar, Railway Station Road, Mahabubnagar: Mobile No.9704972040 To The Superintendent Of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar Range, Mahabubnagar Division, Date: 22nd Jan, 2025 Dear Sir/Madam, Subject: Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Service Tax Notice *** I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally request an extension of 20 days to respond to the mail sent by the Service Tax office dated 20th Jan 2025. Unfortunately. we are currently facing an unforeseen circumstance that has hindered our ability to gather the necessary documentation to address the notice adequately. Our auditor, who was responsible for managing our accounts and related documents, has recently passed away. This has left us in a ....