Case Law Details
B. Aleem Miah Works Contractor Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court)
Conclusion: Since no definite view could be taken that the notice was beyond the period of limitation in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 and it depend upon the factual examination and adjudication by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Central Tax Commissioner.
Held: Assessee was a works contractor, carrying out such contract works with the Governmental authorities, like construction of buildings, roads etc. According to assessee all such works were indivisible composite work contracts and therefore, did not attract service tax. That apart, Government of India had issued notifications from time to time exempting such services provided to the Governmental authorities from payment of service tax. On the basis of information received from the Income Tax Department, the officer had prima facie taken a view that assessee had rendered certain taxable services and declared the value of the services in its return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but as the service provider had not paid any service tax, the same had resulted in non-payment of service tax. It was in such circumstances, that the impugned show cause notice had been issued. Assessee contended that he was not required to pay service tax for the service provided to Governmental authorities; secondly, the limitation period under sub-section (1) of Section 73 had expired long back. The extended period of limitation as per the proviso, could not be made applicable in the case of assessee. In the instant case, the two aspects i.e., whether assessee had provided services to only Governmental authorities, and not others, and even if provided to Governmental authorities, whether the contracts were indivisible, or composite, and secondly whether the extended period of limitation as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 would be applicable or not, would depend upon the factual examination and adjudication by the adjudicating authority. Thus, to preempt the adjudicating authority from carrying out the said exercise at the threshold would not be justified. Thus, no definite view could be taken at this stage, that the said notice was beyond the period of limitation in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73. These were matters for examination and adjudication by the primary authority. It would be in the interest justice if assessee was relegated to the forum of adjudication before the officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
