O R D E R

The petitioner a proprietor of concern named "J.J.Fabrication" has filed this writ petition against the impugned Order-in-Original No.12/2022(ST) dated 16.02.2022.

2. By the impugned order, the respondent has confirmed the demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice No.10/2021(ST) dated 28.04.2021. By the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.19,57,323/- should not be demanded from the petitioner for the Financial Year 2015-16. The notice appears to have been issued by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section

73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not received the aforesaid Show Cause Notice No.10/2021 (ST) dated 28.04.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner was directly called upon to appear for a personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner appeared before the respondent who has now passed the impugned order confirming the demand proposed in Show Cause Notice No.10/2021(ST) dated 28.04.2021.

4. It is submitted that the demand proposed in the show cause notice is clearly time barred in view of the limitation prescribed under Section 73(6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is further submitted that the last date for filing of the returns for the period between 01.04.2015 and 30.09.2015 and for the period between 21.10.2015 and 31.03.2016 covered by show cause notice under the provisions of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 are as under:-

5. It is therefore submitted that Show Cause Notice No.10/2021(ST)

issued on 28.04.2021 was clearly barred by limitation under Section 73 (6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order passed on the strength of Show Cause Notice issued long after expiry of limitation is liable to be quashed.

6. That apart, it is submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order has not alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the facts to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(6)(i)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, on this count also the impugned order passed on the strength of Show Cause Notice was liable to be quashed. A reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE reported in 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC).

7. It is further submitted that in the taxing matters, this Court is bound by strict rules of interpretation and therefore there is no scope for invoking the extended period of limitation prescribed under the statue. In this connection, a reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Agrotech India Ltd, 2014 (302) ELT 3 (SC).

8. Defending the impugned order, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the period of limitation would have expired on 24.10.2020 and on 24.04.2021. However, on account of the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, during March 2021 the period of limitation was extended in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)No.3 of 2020 dated

10.01.2022.

9. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on a Circular dated 25.04.2016 bearing Reference No.C.No.296/07/2016-CZ.9 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is submitted that as per the Circular, the time for filing the Returns in Form ST3 was extended from time to time from 25.04.2016 to 29.04.2016. Taking note of the difficulties faced by the taxpayers in the ACES application, the time for filing returns was also extended from 25.04.2016 to 29.04.2016. Relevant portion of