SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 37

CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sanjiv Srivastava, Technical Member
M/s Stone Heights Infra – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Gautam Buddha Nagar – Respondent
Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-002-APPL-280-23-24



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Utkarsh Malviya
For the Respondents: Shri Manish Raj

The extended limitation for service tax demands was improperly invoked due to lack of evidence supporting suppression of facts.

Headnote:(A) Finance Act, 1994 - Section 73(1) - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Issue of service tax demand - Appellant argued that demand is barred by limitation and the payments made were for exempted services. Court held that the extended period of limitation for service tax demand was not applicable as the appellant acted under a bona fide belief regarding tax obligations. (Paras 6.3, 6.4, 6.10)

(B) Exemption under Service Tax Law - Appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to support claims of exemption for service tax on the amount received. Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming exemption, which in this case was not satisfactorily met. (Paras 4.6, 4.10)

(C) Final decision of the court was to uphold the appellant’s contention and allow the appeal as the issuance of the show-cause notice was beyond the prescribed limitation.

Result: Demand of Rs. 3,72,168/- was set aside.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI- EXCUS-002-APPL-2 80-23-24 dated 25.09.2023 of the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), NOIDA. By the impugned order following has been held:

ORDER

In view of foregoing discussion and findings, I uphold the Order-in- Original No. 54/JC/CGST/GBN/2022-23 dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Adi.), Central GST Commissionerate, Gautam Buddh Nagar and reject the Appeal No. 415/ST/NOIDA/APPL/GBN/2022-23 datec 15.03.2023, filed by M/s. Stone Heights Infra, 22, Akash Puram Vistar Shyam Gani, Pilibhit Bypass, Bareilly (U.P).

1.2 By order in original dated 15.12.2022 following has been held:

ORDER

I. I drop the proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice No. 53/JC/GBN/2021 dated 21.10,2021 and consequent thereto drop the entire demand of service tax Rs. 99,40,539/- (inclusive of cess) (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakh Forty Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Nine only) on value of the services so provided by M/s. Stone Heights Infra, 22, Akash Puram Vistar Shyam Gani, Pilibhit Bypass, Bareilly (U.P) during the financial year 2016-17 on the grounds as detailed and discussed in the foregoing paras

II. I confirm the demand of service fax amounting to Rs, 3,72,168/-(Rupees Three lakh seventy two thousand one hundred sixty eight only) on the value of Rs. 24,81,122/-, under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance and Section 174 of Central Goods & Servics Tax Act, 2017 and order to recover the same from them under section 73(2) of the Act ibid.

III. I confirm the demand of Interest at appropriate rate against demand at SI No.(i) above and order for recovery of the same under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142(8) and Section 174 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

IV. I impose the penalty of Rs. 3,72,168/-(Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Two Hundred Sixty Eight only) under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for deliberate suppression of the vital facts with intent to evade service tax as detailed in the foregoing paras read with Section 142(8) section 174 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

V. I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) under the provisions of 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142(8) section 174 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for their act of failure to take registration of service tax when they were liable to pay service tax.

VI. I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) under the provisions of Section 77 (1) (c) of the Finance Act, 1994 , read with Section 142(8) section 174 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for non- furnishing of required information before the jurisdictional range Officer.

VII. I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) under the provisions of Section 77 (1) (c) of the Finance Act, 1994 , read with Section 142(8) section 174 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for each of the ST-3 returns which they failed to file by due dates.

2.1 The appellant was not registered with the Department under the service tax, but had got themselves registered under Goods & Service Tax vide GSTIN: 09BIDPK6600G1ZG under the category "Works Contract Service"

2.2 On examination of data related to the appellant, received from the Income Tax Department (third party data), it was revealed that total amount received by the appellant as per 26 AS was Rs. 6,87,51,383/- during the financial year 2016-17.

2.3 As appellant was not registered and was not paying any service tax enquiries were initiated. A letter dated 01.06.2021, followed by its reminder dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the appellant with the request to submit reconciliation statement for discrepancy along with supporting documents and to intimate whether the service income earned by them for the corresponding period is attributable to any negative list services contained in Section 66D of the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994 or is, for any reason, exempt from payment of service tax.

2.4 In response to abo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top