Court held that proper grounds for invoking extended limitation for tax demands must demonstrate intent to evade payment, and procedural fairness must be maintained in tax assessments.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bilasipara in the district of Dhubri (Assam) and is engaged in construction works under the Government and various agencies. The petitioner No. 1/company is represented by Shri Chain Roop Baid who is also the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Class-I(A) Contractor under the Government of Assam and has undertaken several major works under the various Department of Government of Assam and Government of India. The petitioner is registered under the Service Tax Registration bearing Service Tax Registration No. AAGCS4032FST001 for rendering taxable service under the category of ‘construction services in respect of commercial or industrial buildings and Civil Structure’, ‘site preparation and clearance services’ and works contract services’. The petitioner has been undertaken various constructions projects pertaining to construction of roads, bridges and various civil structures for various Govenmental authorities during the period 2014-2017. Majority of these works are exempted under Clause 12A and 13 of Mega Notification No. 25/12- Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 which was issued under Section 93(1)of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The Respondent No. 3 had initiated an enquiry vide its letter dated 31.10.2017 under the provision of the Finance Act, 1994 calling upon the petitioner company to submit the documents in relation to verification of service tax compliance and for documents relating to business for the period FY 2014-15 to June 2017. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 08.02.2018 was also asked to submit the documents in relation to taxable services provided by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letters dated 24.04.2018, 03.09.2018 and 02.07.2019 submitted all the documents as called for.

3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 i.e Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Commissionerate, Guwahati issued an impugned Demand cum Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2019 bearing No. CNV (15) 16/ADJ/CGST- HQRS/GHY/GHY/ST/2019/2147 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner company has suppressed the actual taxable value of services provided in financial year 2014-15. The allegation was made solely on the basis of income tax returns and 26AS of petitioner company. It was also alleged that the petitioner company has received amounts to the tune of Rs. 258,05,96,111/- and the petitioner declared only the amounts to the tune of Rs. 12,37,49,697/- as gross value of services in ST 3 returns. It was also alleged that the petitioner has suppressed taxable value amounting to Rs. 245,68,46,414/-. The respondent No. 2 demanded short paid service tax dues amounting to Rs. 30,36,66,217/- on the gross amount of Rs. 245,68,46,414/- for the financial year 2014-15.

4. The respondent No. 3 i.e Additional Director General of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Guwahati subsequently, issued another impugned show cause notice bearing No. DGGSTI/GuZU/INV/ST/28/2017 dated 09.01.2020 to the petitioner company alleging that the petitioner company has suppressed the actual taxable value in ST-3 returns and evaded payment of service tax. Thus, demande