TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,122/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Works Contractor providing service of woodworks, construction, installation, and other related services to, various parties including the educational institutions and clinical establishments, in the capacity of main contractor and sub-contractor also; that on the basis of third party data received from the Income Tax Department for the year 2014-2015, it was observed that there were receipts from services as per income tax returns and no ST-3 returns were filed by the appellant and no tax was deposited. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 28.09.2020 was issued alleging that the appellant was providing taxable services but did not obtain service tax registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive under a bonafide belief that the services rendered by him were only exempt under entry no. 12 and entry no. 29(h) of the Notification No. 25/2012-ST and therefore there existed no intention whatsoever to evade payment of service tax. He further submits that allegation of suppression merely on account of non-registration is baseless and unsustainable in law. He further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while partially allowing the appeal vide impugned order dated 17.04.2024, himself recorded a categorical finding that the demand pertaining to the period April 2014 to September 2014 was barred by limitation and accordingly dropped demand amounting to Rs. 4,22,329/- out of the total demand of Rs. 5,53,451/-. He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the entire case has been made against the appellant only on the basis of third party data received from the Income Tax Department for the year 20142015. Further, I find that in the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 28.09.2020 for the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015 by invoking the extended period of limitation. I also find that in the present case the appellant has a bonafide belief that he is not liable to pay service tax because the services rendered by him are only exempt under entry no. 12 and entry no. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, therefore, there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. I also find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has dropped the substantial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Apex Court has examined the statutory pre-requisites for invoking the extended period of limitation and dealt with the issue of whether every nonpayment can be termed as a willful default. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Every non-payment/non-levy of tax doesn't attract extended period. There must be some positive action which betrays negative intention of wilful default. For operation of extended period of limitation, intention to deliberately default is a mandatory prerequisite and inadvertent nonpayment doesn't attract extended period of limitation. Burden of proving mala fide on part of assessee lies on shoulders of Department who alleges it and assessee cannot be asked to substantiate his bona fide....