TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Commissioner Income Tax circle 1 quota, for the financial year 2013-214 and 2015- 16. 1.1 On perusal of the documents provided by the income tax department, the revenue department observed that the appellant provided services to various companies/ firms and TDS on the amount of Rs. 1,40,65,334/- as was received (gross receipts as per ITR) by the appellant during the aforesaid period was found deducted by the said companies/ service recipients. It was observed that neither the activity of the appellant is specified in negative list of Section 66 D of Finance Act 1994 nor appellant appeared to have been granted any exemption not even of Mega Exemption Notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. In the light of these observations and alleging the activity as taxable, the appellant was alleged liable to pay service tax on the afore mentioned gross value received by the appellant during the period in dispute. 2. The Show Cause Notice [SCN] bearing no. 15/384/2018/8297 dated 22/10/2018 was served upon the appellant proposing the demand and recovery of Rs. 19,72,702/- as service tax for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 from the appellant along with the interest at the applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. CGST NACIN 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 606 (Tri.- All) * Shubham Electricals v. CCE 2015 (40) S.T.R. 1034 (ri. Del.). Affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court - 2016 (45) S.T.R. J314 (Del). 5. Finally while challenging the Show Cause Notice on the grounds of limitation; Learned counsel submitted that the figures of Form 26AS were available with the department from the concerned year itself hence, could well be verified within the normal period of limitation. The allegations of suppression of material facts against the appellant are therefore not sustainable. Nor there is any evidence produced by the department proving that the appellant was indulged in any fraud or had made the wilful miss statement. Hence, the invocation of extended period while issuing the Show Cause Notice in question is not in accordance with law. Following decisions have been relied upon praying for the Order under challenge to be set aside and for the appeal to be allowed: * Pappu Crane Service v. Commissioner (Service Tax Appeal No. 70707 of 2018- [DB] * Delhi in Deltax Enterprises v. CCE, Delhi reported as 2018 (10) GSTL 392 (Tri - Del) 6. While rebutting these submissions, Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted fact that the appellant was having income during the period in dispute (2013-14 to 2015-16) from following two sources. (i). by way of trading/ sales total amount of Rs 94,93,000/- was received. (ii). in the form of rent received while renting an immovable property, an amount of Rs 57,50,000/-. 10. With respect to first income the appellant had submitted the profit and loss account and the VAT annual return however under the name of M/s Shri Sawariya Traders, it has categorically been recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant, as per income tax returns, was the proprietor of M/s Anjali Traders and not of M/s Sawariya Traders. We do not find any other document on record to connect the appellant (Shrimati. Anju Makhija) to M/s Sawariya traders. The liability of later is wrongly fastened upon the appellant. Irrespective trading/sale is out of the scope of the definition of service under Section 65 B44 Finance Act which specifically excludes an activity which constitutes merely, (i) transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or (ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us to hold that the income received by the appellant by way of renting of the immovable property is also not taxable. 13. From the above discussion it becomes clear that the appellant was under bonafide belief of their activity to be out of the ambit of being called as taxable service of section 65B (44) of Finance Act 1994. The non-payment of service tax and not obtaining the service tax registration, therefore, cannot be held to be an act of intentionally suppressing material facts. We hold that the extended period has wrongly been invoked by the department while issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 22/10/2018. It, otherwise was the department's responsibility to bring on record the evidence towards the positive act of the appellant to intentionally evade the payment of tax. The department has failed to do the same. As already observed above, department has even failed to consider the submissions of the appellant vis-a-vis the nature of the activity rendered by the appellant. We hold that the extended period has wrongly been invoked while issuing the present SCN. We draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. CCE R....