Case Details: Ajay Kumar Agarwal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Agra (2025) 27 Centax 365 (Tri.-All)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
- Shri S.P. Ojha, Consultant, for the Appellant.
- Smt. Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in providing declared services, filed NIL returns in its ST-3 for the relevant period. Based on financial data obtained from the Income Tax Department, the Revenue identified a discrepancy between Form 26AS and the ST-3 returns, indicating undeclared turnover. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued, alleging suppression of facts and short payment of service tax. The Revenue invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, asserting that the differential turnover would have remained undisclosed without third-party financial verification. The assessee challenged the demand before the CESTAT, Allahabad, arguing that its receipts were below the exemption threshold under Notification No. 33/2012-ST. It contended that it had a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable, citing precedent decisions, including M/s Kwality Ice Cream Company. The assessee maintained that the mere mismatch of financial data did not amount to suppression of facts warranting the invocation of the extended limitation period.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Allahabad, held that the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was not invocable as the assessee had received amounts below the exemption limit and had acted under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that a mere discrepancy between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns does not establish suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. Accordingly, the demand for the extended period was set aside, and the penalty was quashed.
List of Cases Cited
- Hari Har Engineering Works v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 71207/2019, dated 24-6-2019 by CESTAT, Allahabad — Followed [Paras 3.2, 4.4]
- Kwality Ice Cream Company v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 51096/2018, dated 23-3-2018 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Followed [Paras 3.2, 4.4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 33/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Para 4.3]
