Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of-

(a) fraud; or
(b) collusion; or
(c) willful misstatement ;or
(d) suppression of facts; or
(e) contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax, by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words eighteen months, the words "five years" had been substituted.

51. A perusal of the Section 73 of the Finance Act reveals that the extended period in respect of recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded can be invoked only when any or more of the conditions prescribed under the proviso to the said section is present. Under the proviso to the said section, there are five situations when the extended period of limitation can be invoked. These are:

(a) Fraud; or
(b) Collusion; or
(c) Willful misstatement; or

54. In CEE Vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments (Supra), while interpreting provisions of Section 11A of the Act of 1944, the Apex Court held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required, before it is saddled with any liability, before (sic beyond) the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

57. Such conclusions as have been discussed above are contrary to the facts which are evident from the pleadings. In any view of the matter for invocation of the provisions of Section 73 for extension of the period of limitation, it must necessarily be a case which falls under any or all the conditions specified under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the CGST Act. From a plain reading of the impugned Order- in-Original and the relevant portions of which have been extracted above, it is evident that there is no finding by the Adjudicating Authority that the case of the petitioner can be considered to be a case which falls under the conditions specified in proviso to Section 73(1). Under such circumstances, the impugned Order-in-Original appears to the Court to have been assumption of jurisdiction by the revenue authorities which was not otherwise vested on the said authority. For the revenue authorities to invoke powers under Section 73(1), there must be a finding and a conclusion arrived at based on the facts of the case that the petitioner assessee had willfully and deliberately resorted to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts of contravention of any of the provision thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, for invocation of the powers proviso to Section 73(1), there must be a conclusive finding arrived at by the Revenue authorities that the petitioner assessee had resorted to any or all for these acts or omissions with the sole intention to evade payment of service tax. Such finding is not discernable from the impugned Order- in-Original passed by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction of the Revenue under the proviso to Section 73(1) has to be concluded to be a jurisdiction assumed by the Revenue authorities not vested on it by the statute. Such assumption of jurisdiction therefore, being contrary to the provisions of the statute itself, the same is colourable and therefore it is held to be unauthorized.