TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the basis of third party data exchange mechanism, the present proceedings were initiated on receiving From 26AS from the Income Tax Department. On the basis of which the Service Tax Department entertained a view that during the period from October 2014 to June 2017, the Appellant-Assessee had allegedly not deposited the Service Tax liability on the entire amount received during that period. 5. Based on the above allegation, a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 29.09.2020 was issued. Vide the Order-In-Original dated 19.09.2023 the following order was passed:- ORDER 20. In view of the findings as discussed herein above, I pass the following order: (i) I confirm that an amount (Gross) of Rs. 3,25,92,597/- received by the party from their client for the pe 2014-15 (Oct 14 to March'15), 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 (upto June'17) in lieu providing the services of "Security Agency Services/ Man Power supply Services" is to be treated as the total value of taxable services. (ii) I confirm the demand of unpaid Service Tax totaling Rs. 49,38,552/-(inclusive all cess) for the period 2014- (Oct 14 to March'15), 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 (upto June'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y' in Form-16. Therefore, the remuneration paid to the Director being a salary is not liable for Service Tax as per negative list under Section 65 B (44) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. I further find that this amount has been shown by the Directors in their individual returns under the head salary and copies of their computation of income, Acknowledgement of Income Tax Return filed by both the directors for the Financial years 2014-15 to 2017-18 have been produced. It is also the case of the Appellant that the entire proceedings is barred by limitation since the period covered in the SCN is from October 2014 to June 2017 and the SCN was issued only on 29.09.2020. A table has been submitted which is reproduced as under:- SI. No. Period Involved ST-3 Return Due Date (Relevant Date) Applicable Normal Limitation* Last Date for Issuance of SCN under Normal Limitation Date of SCN 1 Oct 2014 - Mar 2015 25 .04.2015 18 Months 24.10.2016 29.09.2020 2 Apr 2015 - Sep 2015 25 10.2015 18 Months 24.04.2017 29.09.2020 3 Oct 2015 - Mar 2016 25 04.2016 18 Months 24.10.2017 29.09.2020 4 Apr 2016 - Sep 2016 25. 10.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief that it was not liable to pay service tax since the services provided by the appellant were "air transport of passenger service". The appellant also contended that mere suppression of facts is not enough for invocation of the extended period as suppression has to be willful with an intent to evade payment of service tax. 9. This submission of the appellant did not find favour of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner held that there is no requirement in law that suppression has to with intention to evade payment of service tax and mere suppression is enough for invoking the extended period of limitation. 10. The Commissioner (Appeals) has merely confirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner without even examining the contention advanced by the appellant that the extended period of limitation could have been invoked only if there was suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. 11. The finding recorded that suppression of facts is enough to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act and there is no necessity of any intent to evade payment of service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws: "4. Section 11A empowers the Department to re- open proceedings if the levy has been short levied or not levied within six months from the relevant date. But the proviso carves out an exception and permits the authority to exercise this power within five years from the relevant date in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso, one of it being suppression of facts. The meaning of the word both in law and even otherwise is well known. In normal understanding it is not different that what is explained in various dictionaries unless of court the context in which it has been used indicates otherwise. A perusal of the proviso indicates that it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or willful default. In fact it is the mildest expression used in the proviso. Yet the surroundings in which it has been used it has to be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Central Excise Act, 1944." 17. ................................. 18. ................................. 19. .................................... 20. It would transpire from the aforesaid decisions that mere suppression of facts is not enough and there must be a deliberate and willful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty. In the absence of any intention to evade payment of service tax, which intention should be evident from the materials on record or from the conduct of the assessee, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Thus, mere non disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax." 15. I find that the taxable value considered for computing the Service Tax liability should be taken from the same source for the entire period under consideration. The Adjudicating Authority has considered the turnover as reported in the Balance Sheet for the Financial Year 2016-17 whereas for the period from October 2014 to March 2015, Financial Year 2015-16 and for Financial Year 2017-18, the turnover reported as per Form 26AS statement has b....