Case Details: Debojit Deb vs. Union of India (2026) 43 Centax 305 (Gau.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Kardak Ete, J.
- Ms M.L. Gope, Ms S. Sarkar, Shri S.K. Saha & Ms N. Hawelia, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Shri S.K. Medhi, SC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in executing roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects for Government departments, claimed exemption from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Department raised a service tax demand for Financial Year 2016-17 solely on the basis of information reflected in Form 26AS and invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed and subsequently upheld by the appellate authority.
High Court Held
The High Court held that a service tax demand cannot be sustained merely on the basis of Form 26AS without an independent examination of the nature and taxability of the services rendered. Further, the extended period of limitation under Section 73 can be invoked only upon establishing the statutory conditions prescribed therein. Since no such findings were recorded and the demand was founded solely on Form 26AS data, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Department was held to be unauthorized. Accordingly, the impugned orders and the consequential demand of service tax, interest and penalties were set aside.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Technocom v. Union of India — (2026) 156 GSTR 602 (Gauhati) — Followed [Paras 7, 8, 9, 12]
List of Notifications Cited
-
- Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012
