Principal Commissioner, Service Tax Vs National Institute of Bank Management (CESTAT Mumbai)
Mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice ingredients for invoking extended period
The CESTAT, Mumbai in Principal Commissioner, Service Tax v. M/s. National Institute of Bank Management [Service Tax Appeal No. 85892 of 2016 dated December 22, 2022] has held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
Facts:
The Revenue Department (“the Appellant”) in this appeal has challenged the Order-in-0riginal passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax Commissionerate, Pune dated December 9, 2015 (“the Impugned Order”) wherein the proceedings initiated in Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) dated April 15, 2014 for the period from 2008 to 2012 were dropped on the ground of being inconsistent with bar of limitation prescribed in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Act”) and for not being in compliance with the pre-requisite enabling the invoking of extended period.
Earlier, the proceedings were initiated against M/s National Institute of Bank Management (“the Respondent”) to fasten liability for having provided ‘taxable services’ in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, with ‘commercial training and coaching centre’ as applicable to ‘post-graduate course in management’ offered by the Respondent.
Issue:
Whether the proceedings are in compliance for enabling the invoking of extended period?
Held:
The CESTAT, Mumbai in Service Tax Appeal No. 85892 of 2016 held as under:
