Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ms Saiuk Agencies Pvt Ltd vs Guwahati on 3 September, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Court No.1
Service Tax Appeal No.76384 of 2024
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.272/GHY(A)/COM/STP/GHY/2024 dated
30.07.2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati)
M/s Saiuk Agencies Private Limited
(Neuk Cottage, Ferndale Compound,Opposite IGP's Office, East Khasi Hills,Shillong-
793001)
Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati
(3rd Floor, GST Bhawan, Kedar Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati-781001)
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Pranab Sikdar, Consultant for the Appellant Shri S.K.Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 03 SEPTEMER 2025 DATE OF DECISION : 03 SEPTEMBER 2025 FINAL ORDER NO.77413/2025 Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax was confirmed against the appellant along with interest and penalties were also imposed on the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the activities pertained to sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption:
During the financial year 2015-16, the appellant, M/s Saiuk Agencies Pvt. Ltd., was retained by M/s Mohan Meakin Ltd., Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad for marketing and sale of its bottled products in the North- East region which were bottled by M/s CMJ Breweries Pvt. Ltd., Byrnihat, Meghalaya and M/s Radiant Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., Khatkhati, Assam. In pursuance thereof, the appellant facilitated the marketing and sale of various registered brands of IMFL and Beer, which were supplied to different State Warehouses across the North- 2
Service Tax Appeal No.76384/2024 East. Since such activity relates exclusively to the sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption, which is constitutionally kept outside the ambit of service tax, no ST-3 return was required to be filed in respect of such transactions.
2.1 On the basis of investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and on the basis of CBDT Data recovered from the Income Tax Department by way of Form 26AS, the demand of service tax proposed to be confirmed against the appellant by way of show-
cause notice dated 23.04.2021 for the period 2015-16 and 2017-18. 2.2 The matter was contested and the demand of service tax was confirmed.
2.3 Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire basis for raising the impugned demand, rests solely on CBDT (Income Tax) data for the Financial Year 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, without the support of any independent or corroborative evidence from the Service Tax records. Such mechanical reliance on Income Tax data, without verification of the nature of receipts or proof of taxable services rendered, is impermissible in law. It is a settled legal position that mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service. The impugned demand, having been raised purely on assumption and presumption is, therefore, not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relies on the following decisions : 3
Service Tax Appeal No.76384/2024
(i) M/s Rishu Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Dibrugarh in Service Tax Appeal No.75509 of 2022 vide Tribunal's Final Order No.75177/2024 dated 08.02.2024 ;
(ii) Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. : 2022 (58) GSTL 345 (Tri.-All.) ;
(iii) M/s Gopi Chenna in Service Tax Appeal No.30412 of 2023 vide Tribunal's Final Order No.A/30078-30079/2024 dated 26.02.2024;
(iv) M/s Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association in Service Tax Appeal No.4174 of 2012 vide Tribunal's Final Order No.60403/2023 dated 18.09.2023.
3.1 The Ld.Counsel for the appellant further submits that the receipts during the Financial Year 2015-16 related to sale of IMFL/Beer, which is outside the purview of service tax. Since such transactions were not taxable services, there was no requirement to file ST-3 returns in respect thereof. Consequently, limitation cannot be reckoned from the due date of filing of return, but in terms of Section 73(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, the relevant date is the date on which service tax, if any, was required to be paid under the Act or the Rules. On this basis, the impugned show-cause notice dated 23.04.2021 is clearly beyond the maximum period of five years and the demand is barred by extended period of limitation. 3.2 On merit, he has contended that the payment relates to sales of IMFL/Beer, which are not taxable. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed after setting aside the impugned order. 4
Service Tax Appeal No.76384/2024
4. Heard the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, who has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions.
6. I find that in this case, the show-cause notice has been issued on 23.04.2021 by invoking extended period of limitation for the period 2015-16 and 2017-18.
7. Considering the facts that the appellant is engaged in the activity of sale of IMFL (Indian-Made Foreign Liquor)/Bear, which is out of purview of service tax as the appellant is under bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax. Consequently, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the last date of payment of service tax is 06.10.2018, which also expires on 06.04.2021 and the show-cause notice has been issued on 23.04.2021.
8. In view of this, I hold that the impugned demand is not sustainable against the appellant as the same is barred by limitation.
9. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) mm