TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 along with interest and equal penalty under Section 78 by invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that on the basis of third party data received from the Income Tax Department for the year 2016-2017 & 2017-2018, it was observed that there was a difference between the receipts from services as per income tax returns and no ST-3 returns filed by the appellant for the said period. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 13.04.2022 was issued to the appellant for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 32,84,941/- along with penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Act was also proposed. After following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original confirmed the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoked the extended period mechanically without establishing any of the ingredients which are required to invoke the extended period of limitation. He also submits that it is a settled position of law that the extended period cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it can only be triggered if the Department establishes the existence of specific jurisdictional facts, namely fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or the suppression of facts with a deliberate intent to evade tax. He also submits that no such malafide intent or deliberate suppression can be attributed to the appellant in the present case. The appellant is a registered Government contractor who was executing public works for the Chandigarh Administration under a bona fide belie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 24.04.2024. 19. The defect is not a curable irregularity but goes to the root of the matter, rendering the proceedings non-est. 4.1 The learned consultant further submits that the mechanical invocation of the extended period of limitation by the department is entirely based on a fundamental misconception of law. The revenue has merely relied upon the third-party data for recovery of service tax calculated on the gross amounts received on account of supply of services from operations in their Form 26AS/Income Tax after deduction of TDS by their diductors to allege suppression of facts. He also submits that a mere difference between the income tax data and service tax disclosures, without any corroborative evidence of intention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT-DEL * M/s Tata Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-l 2015 (11) TMI 1049 CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) * M/s Velocity Propbuild Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida -Pvt. Ltd. Versus 2025 (8) TMI 802 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD * BCCI Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-l-2014-TIOL-1774-CESTAT-MUM * BCCI Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-l 2015-TIOL-04-SC-ST 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perusals of the material on record, I find that 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 20162017 & 2017-2018 by invoking the extended period of limitation. I also find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in the case of M/s Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, (cited Supra), wherein, the 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 ....