The transactions between the respondent and SICCL lacked elements of service to qualify for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, demonstrating no legal basis for invoking the extended limitation period due to lack of evidence for willful suppression.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

For ease of reference, this judgment is divided into the following sections:

INDEX

1. Heard.

2. The Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi¹[Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant or Commissioner”.] has filed these statutory appeals under Section 35L(b) of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944, assailing the common judgment and final order Nos.53602-53605 of 2018 dated 21st June, 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi²[Hereinafter, being referred to as “Appellate Tribunal”] in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50119-50120 of 2014.

3. The M/s Elegant Developers, 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh³[Hereinafter, being referred to as “respondent”] was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 22nd April, 2010 by the Commissioner and pursuant to the adjudication thereof, the Commissioner vide order dated 30th September, 2013, imposed a penalty and demand of tax against the respondent in the following terms:

“49. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, I pass the order as under:-

ORDER

1. I confirm the demand of Rs.10,45,61,837/- (Rupees Ten Crores Fourth Five Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Seven Only) against M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) under Section 73(1) of the FINANCE ACT , 1994.

2. I order to recover interest on Rs.10,45,61,837/- from M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) at appropriate rates under Section 75 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994.

3. I impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) under Section 77 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 for not applied and taken registration under Section 69 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 and for not filing prescribed ST-3 returns under Section 70 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 read with Rule 4 and 7j of the SERVICE TAX RULES , 1994 in respect of ‘Real Estate Agent Services’.

4. I impose a penalty of Rs.10,45,61,837/- (Rupees Ten Crores Fourth Five Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Seven Only) against M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) under Section 78 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994.

5. I impose a personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on Shri Rajat Yadav, Partner of M/s Elegant Developers 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad, (UP) for failure to furnish required information/documents and non appearance against summons on time under Section 77 (c) of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 as amended.

6. I do not impose any penalty under Section 76 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 upon M/s Elegant Developers, 1-C, Beli Road, Allahabad (UP).”

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 86 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 to the Appellate Tribunal which stands allowed vide final judgment and order dated 21st June, 2019, and is the subject matter of challenge in these statutory appeals under Section 35L(b) of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944,