The Tribunal did not find grounds for extending the limitation period under tax law due to lack of evidence for misrepresentation or concealment of facts.

JUDGMENT :

(PER VALMIKI SA MENEZES , J.) :

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at the behest of the Principal Commissioner of the Commissionerate of Goods and Services Tax impugning the order dated 23/07/2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Mumbai allowing in Service Tax Appeal No.ST/ 88336/2018 at the behest of the respondent herein.

The impugned order of the CESTAT allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order in original dated 02/05/2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner of the GST, Mumbai, East Commissionerate which has made a demand of service tax amounting to Rs.75,22,81,847/- for the period 1^st July, 2012 to 31^st March, 2015 under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 , with a further demand of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount of service tax demanded, in addition to which penalty of Rs.75,22,81,847/- has been imposed on the respondent in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 ; the order dated 02/05/2018 of the Commissioner further imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent for not filing proper returns under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further confirmation of the demand of service tax from the respondent amounting to Rs.55,07,78,305/- for the period October, 2012 to September, 2013 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the said Act and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- for not filing proper returns under Section 70 of that Act. It has also imposed penalty of Rs.5,50,77,830/- equivalent to 10 % of the sales tax amount in terms of provisions of Section 76 r/w Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 .

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the proposed following substantial questions of law for our decision :-

i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the Respondent was discharging sovereign function ;

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the extended period of limitation was not applicable to the demand of Service Tax in the first Show Cause Notice dated 17/03/2016 ;

iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in setting aside even the demand for normal period which is sustainable as per provisions of section 73(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 ;

iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the principles of Natural Justice was violated in the matter of the second Show Cause Notice dated 21/02/2018 ;

v. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in remanding back the second Show Cause Notice dated 21/02/2018 without considering that the same was issued as a statement of demand under Section 73(1A) of Finance Act, 1994 .

3. The facts that have led to the filing of present appeal are as under :-

a] With the insertion of Section 66 (3) in the Finance Act, 1994 , w.e.f. 1^st July, 2012, when a Negative Tax Regime was introduced, the Commissioner of Tax-I at Mumbai issued a letter dated 11/01/2013 in terms of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 (Excise Act) seeking information / data from the respondent and alleging that the respondent was undertaking certain activities under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) in the course of which it was collecting fees from various entities under its control, and which appeared to the Commissioner to be taxable w.e.f. 1^st July, 2012; similar request