Anil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court held that not obtaining registration under service tax alone cannot be reason to believe that there is existence of fraud or wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax. Thus, extended period of limitation not applicable.
Facts- The petitioner is a Government Contractor, engaged in the construction and maintenance of roads and also in construction of buildings such as Panchayat Bhawan etc. in the district of Katihar. The petitioner had purchased sand, soil, chips, bitumen, bricks etc. directly from the market for the use in the said works. No good has been supplied by the Government for use in the execution of the works contract. The petitioner does not hold any mining lease from the State Government or any other authority.
It is stated that the respondent-Government, Department has deducted a sum of Rs.20,38,629/- as royalty from the petitioner’s bills during the period 2016-17. Payment certificates issued by the respondent Executive Engineers clearly show that the royalty amount was deducted from the petitioner’s bill. The petitioner is challenging a demand-cum-show cause notice and demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Purnea Division.
