Principal Commissioner Vs Mammen Engineering Works (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Material Facts
The Department filed an appeal against the CESTAT order dated 01.08.2019, whereby the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Commissioner for recalculation of service tax liability restricted to the period prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 without invoking the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1).
The respondent, a sub-contractor, had received payments of ₹19,30,94,411 for fabrication, erection and commissioning work executed for the main contractors, M/s Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. and M/s Viraj Steel & Energy Ltd. The respondent did not pay service tax on the ground that the main contractors were liable to pay the tax and had already discharged the liability, supported by certificates issued by the main contractors. During audit, it was noticed that the respondent had neither disclosed nor paid service tax in its ST-3 returns. A show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 was issued for the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12 invoking the extended period of limitation.
Procedural History
The Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand along with interest and penalty. The respondent appealed before CESTAT, which remitted the matter to the Commissioner for recalculation of tax liability within the normal limitation period under Section 73(1), without invoking the extended limitation. The Department challenged that order before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
