Extended Period of Limitation Cannot Be Invoked as Assessee Had Bona Fide Belief That Service Tax Was Not Payable on Services

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Extended Limitation Period
Case Details: Maheshwari Builders V. Commissioner of CE & CGST, Lucknow (2025) 29 CENTAX 72 (TRI.-ALL)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S/Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (J) & Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
  • Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Adv., for the Appellant.
  • Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee received amounts for services that were either covered by the negative list or eligible for exemption. Based on this, the assessee believed that service tax was not payable. However, the department alleged suppression of facts as the differential turnover was not declared in ST-3 returns. The issue before the Allahabad Tribunal was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked by the department as the assessee had a bona fide belief that service tax was not payable on services covered by the negative list or eligible for exemption.

CESTAT Held

The Tribunal noted that the services were either covered by the negative list or exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended. Despite the adjudicating authority acknowledging this, the demands were confirmed without proper evaluation. The Tribunal held that relying solely on Form 26AS without assessing exemptions or verifying service nature was insufficient. It was held that the assessee’s belief was genuine and supported by precedent. Therefore, the extended limitation period was not applicable, and the demand was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

List of Cases Cited

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Texturising Polyester Yarn from PET Chips Not Manufacture of Filament Yarn | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Spice Mix Adding Flavour and Aroma Classifiable as Spices Under Tariff 0910 91 00 SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 1, 2025

Refund on Abated Value Denied Without Challenging Self-Assessment | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 31, 2025

Refund Must Be Granted as No Stay on Judgment Excluding Trade Discounts From Turnover | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 30, 2025

Delay Beyond Condonable Limit for Fixation of Special Rate Not Excusable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Quashes SCN for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Consultation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025

SC Upholds Tax on Ink Used in Printing Lottery Tickets

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 15, 2025

Packing or Labeling of Earthmoving Machines Not Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 14, 2025

Subscription and Entrance Fees from Members Not Liable to Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 13, 2025

Independent Appeal Against ROM Order Dismissed Only Final Tribunal Order Appealable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 9, 2025