Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The further limb of argument by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the only reason recorded by the Respondent No.3 in its impugned Order-in-Original/ADJ/ AIZAWL-CGST- COMN/GST/NO.04 dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 in levying service tax upon the Petitioners was that it is evident from Form 26AS that the notice was providing taxable service in contravention of Section 66, 66B, 67, 68 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 6 & 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and by way of willful suppression of fact with an intend to evade payment of service tax amounting to Rs.58,72,756/-relating to the period 2014- 15 (Oct -- Mar) to 2017-18 (Apr-Jun). In this regard the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Form 26AS is the Certificate of Tax Deduction at Source issued by the Income Tax Department showing the total amount of tax deducted at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the total receipts during the relevant assessment years. In the present case the relevant 'Form 26AS' issued by the Income Tax Department clearly shows the details of the Agencies which made payments to the Petitioner with the amount oftax deduct at source. In the said Form 26AS, out of various agencies made payment to the Petitioner during the year 2014-15 to 2017-18 and all are against the services specifically excluded under Section 66 D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, without having any evidence on record, the Respondent No.3 proceeded erroneously and levied service tax upon the entire receipts made out of service that are specifically excluded under Section 66 D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. Such action of the Respondent No.3 in levying service tax upon the entire receipts of the Petitioner without considering the fact that the entire receipts were from excluded services are absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, not tenable in law and liable to be interfered with by this Court.

18. Mr. Saraf, learned senior counsel submits that invocation of extended period of limitation is not proper in the present case as pre- condition for such invocation was not existed so as to re-open and initiate the proceeding after the regular period of limitation is expired. In the present case there is no element of any fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act as the services provided by the Petitioner Company were excluded service as provided under the negative list contained in Section 66 D(i)(A) of Finance Act, 1994 in the relevant year 2014-15 to 2017-18 and therefore there was no short payment of service tax on account of any fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act and therefore in that view of the matter the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case only on the basis of documents like Form 26AS and therefore the impugned Order-in-Original/ADJ/AIZAWL-CGST-COMMNR/GST/NO.04 dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 by Invoking the extended period of limitation in the present case is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed.

23. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by the said Judgment directed that after arriving at a conclusive determination reasoned order or a further demand notice as the case may be issued by the authorities. However, if on the other hand in the conclusion arrived at that the petitioner is not liable to pay service tax appropriate reason order is to be passed. It is submitted that the order has attained finality as no appeal has been preferred against the said Judgment.

24. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also pressed into service Judgment rendered in Luit Developers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dibrugarh (Service Tax Appeal No. 75792 of 2021) by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. While dealing with the imposition of service tax levied on the basis of entries in Form 26AS of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS cannot be used to determine service tax liability unless there is any evidence shown that it was due to a taxable service. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that there was no mala fide intention and therefore extended period of limitation cannot be invoked on the ground and service tax, interest and penalty was not sustainable and the same was accordingly set aside.

25. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the Service Tax has been levied on the basis of the information reflected in the 26AS statement of the Income Tax. The 26AS statement only reflects the Income Tax deducted at source and the amount from which the said tax has been deducted. The said 26AS statement cannot determine the liability of the Service Tax of the petitioner inasmuch as only because Income Tax was deducted at source from certain receipts in respect of the various services rendered, it cannot be said that the said services were taxable under the Finance Act of 1994. A particular receipt on account of services rendered though may be liable to Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same may not be liable for payment of service tax because of the exemptions granted under the Finance Act of 1994, or because the liability for payment of service tax may have been fastened on the service recipient on reverse charge basis. As such the information contained in the 26AS statement cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be indicative of the fact that the services in respect of which the amount was received and the income tax was deducted at source on the said receipt were also taxable under the Finance Act of 1994 and liable to Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority simply on the basis of inferences and analogy levied Service Tax on the entire receipts as reflected in the 26AS statement without examining the fact as to whether those Services were liable to Service Tax under the Finance Act of 1994. Without undertaking such an exercise and examination, the Adjudicating Authority cannot levy the Service Tax on the said receipts as has been held by the Apex Court that Tax cannot be imposed on the basis of Inferences and analogy. Since in the present case the entire Service Tax liability has been imposed any on inferences and analogy without coming to a finding that the said services were liable to Service Tax under the Finance Act of 1994 the impugned Adjudication Order is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction, and the same is liable tobe set aside and quashed.