Case Details: Chhattisgarh Samvad Versus Principal Commissioner, CGST, Raipur (2025) 32 Centax 166 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri A.K. Batra, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant.
- Shri Anand Narayan, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, registered with the service tax department, was self-assessing service tax and filing returns. It was contended that the responsibility to scrutinise the returns rested with the jurisdictional officer under the Finance Act, 1994, and if any tax escaped assessment and was later discovered by audit, the fault would lie with the assessing officer. The appellant submitted that it had already been audited previously, and a show cause notice (SCN) had been issued earlier on the same grounds. It was further contended that all relevant facts were within the knowledge of the authorities, and therefore, issuance of a subsequent SCN on the same grounds by alleging suppression was not permissible. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT Delhi.
CESTAT Held
The Delhi CESTAT held that when a SCN had been issued earlier on the same grounds and all relevant facts were already within the knowledge of the authorities, a subsequent SCN could not be issued on the same grounds alleging suppression. The CESTAT observed that the appellant was registered, self-assessing service tax, and filing returns, and that it was the responsibility of the officer to scrutinise such returns. The CESTAT further held that if some tax escaped assessment and was later discovered by audit, the fault could not be attributed to suppression by the appellant.
List of Cases Cited
- Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector — 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.) — Relied [Paras 6, 8, 10]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 14/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004 [Para 6]
- Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 6, 18]
