Case Law Details
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Surya Vistacom Private Limited (Calcutta High Court)
Held that the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact is untenable as the Act contemplates a positive action which betrays a negative intent of wilful default.
Facts-
The respondent/assessee was issued a show cause notice alleging that they have availed and utilized Cenvat Credit of the amount of service tax paid by them against renting of immovable property and security services on the ground that they are recipient of the said services. AO pointed out that the assessee is not maintaining separate account/register for receipt and use of input/input services as required under Rule 6(2) and, as such, they are under obligation to pay an amount at the rate of 6 per cent of the value of the exempted services. AO, to justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1)of the Act, stated that the non-payment of service tax would been undetected unless investigation was initiated and the assessee has not disclosed any material fact to the department’s officer who checked the documents of the assessee during investigation and, therefore, opined that the assessee had made a wilful mistake with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Accordingly, the show cause notice proposed to recover a sum of Rs.3,29,07,268/- u/s. 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Interest was also proposed to levy as well as penalty.
Conclusion-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
