Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Scorpion Security Limited (Karnataka High Court)
Indisputedly, the second show cause notice issued on 19.10.2006 relating to the periods, April 2001 – March 2006, covered the period April 2001 – March 2004 in the first show cause notice dated 09.08.2004, which relates to the period April 1998 – March 2004. The first notice in fact did not contain the proposal to demand service tax on the respondent in respect of the activities other than security agent services. In order to justify the demands of extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority has arrived at a finding that the respondents have not kept a copy of such bills pertaining to security services but had given only the break-up of services of other services on which service tax has not been paid. Much emphasis is placed on this point by the learned counsel for the Revenue.
It is beyond comprehension as to what prevented the department to investigate in the year 2004 itself in contacting the end users on the service base so as to verify the authenticity of these invoice copies. It is trite that the deficiencies in the investigation or incorrect demand in the first show cause notice cannot be made good in the second show cause notice and subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time. In the case of Commissioner of C. EX., S. T & Cus., Bangalore-II V/s. Nitesh Estates Ltd., [2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 414 (Kar.)], the Co-ordinate bench of this Court where one of us, (Hon’ble SSJ was a member) as held that Central Board of Excise and Customs being the highest administrative body of department, departmental clarification issued by such body is binding on the Revenue, on the contrary Revenue cannot be allowed to argue against legal position rightly explained by C.B.E. & C itself. Reference placed by the learned counsel for the assessee on the Circular No.1063/2/20 18-CX dated 16.02.2018 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance C.B.E. & C containing compilation of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts accepted by the Department where no review petitions/appeals respectively have been filed indicates that the decision in Nizam Sugar Factory supra is binding on the Department not merely for the reason that no review petition has been filed but the binding nature of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The fact finding authority having taken cognizance of the facts has reached at a conclusion that there was no suppression by the respondents to invoke the extended period of limitation which being purely based on the factual aspects of the matter, we find no reasons in interfere with the same.
The finding of the Tribunal based on Nizam Sugar Factory supra cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
