Siddartha Travels Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court held that extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as transactions were not disclosed in ST-3 and relevant information were not provided to taxing authority.
Facts- The petitioner was running a travel agency. He was receiving money on account of sale of tickets and in lieu of sale of tickets, the petitioner was receiving commission. It is submitted that under the provisions of the Service Tax Laws, he would be liable to pay service tax only to the extent of commission received on booking of travel tickets. It is his stand that in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, no tax is payable on the gross value received and the liability, if any, is limited to the rendition of service that too after abatement as prescribed under the notifications issued under the Act of 1994.
Conclusion- Held that this petitioner having surrendered his service tax registration had not disclosed the transactions in ST-3. The Taxing Authority were not aware of this, they were looking for cooperation on the part of the petitioner, they called for relevant information and records during investigation but the petitioner did not provide those information to the Taxing Authority. In such circumstance, if the Taxing Authority has taken a view that it is a case of suppression and the facts which have surfaced during investigation were not earlier known to them and they would not have come to know it if the investigation would not have taken place, cannot be found fault with. This Court is, therefore, of the prima-facie view that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the respondent no. 2 or respondent no. 3 in invoking the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 of the Act of 1994.
