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Your email address will not be published.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
HC Validates Pre-Deposit Payment via Electronic Cash Ledger

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025

HC Grants Stay on Service Tax Demand Upon 5% Deposit

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 15, 2025

SC Upholds 90% Abatement for Online Travel Firm as Tour Operator

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 11, 2025

Service Tax Demand Can’t Be Based Solely on 26AS–ST-3 Mismatch | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 10, 2025

Massage and Hair Oils with Alcohol Not Excisable | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 9, 2025

HC Grants Time for Pre-Deposit | Revives VAT Appeal

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 8, 2025

No Remand Needed for Accepted and Paid Tax Demand | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 4, 2025

Writ Not Maintainable in Brand Income Tax Dispute | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 3, 2025

No Consignment Note Means No GTA Service | CESTAT on RCM Liability

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 3, 2025

ST Demand Set Aside as Authority Ignored Special Audit & Reconciliation | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

July 2, 2025