Sasta Sundar Ventures Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Summary: The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), East Regional Bench, Kolkata, allowed the appeal filed by Sasta Sundar Ventures Ltd. and quashed the service tax proceedings initiated by invoking the extended period of limitation under the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute arose from service tax returns filed for October 2009 to March 2010. The appellant was engaged in providing information technology software services and business auxiliary services and had registered offices in Kolkata and Dehradun. While filing the Service Tax Returns and making payment of service tax for the relevant period, the appellant inadvertently mentioned the service tax registration number of its Dehradun Unit instead of the registration number applicable to its Kolkata Unit. During investigation, the department noticed that the payment did not match the registration of the Kolkata Unit and consequently issued a show-cause notice dated 23 April 2015 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been regularly filing Service Tax Returns and had specifically filed its ST-3 Return on 24 April 2010, although an incorrect registration number had been mentioned therein. The Tribunal emphasised that the Revenue’s case was not that the appellant had failed to pay the service tax. Considering the regular filing of returns and the fact that the dispute arose from an inadvertent error in mentioning the registration number, the Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable. Accordingly, it held that the impugned proceedings were unwarranted and quashed them. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CESTAT KOLKATA
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax has been confirmed against the appellant on the allegation that the appellant has filed their Service Tax Returns, but did not pay service tax for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010, a show-cause notice dated 23.04.2015 was issued by invoking extended period of limitation.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing information technology software service and business auxiliary service having their registered office in Kolkata as well as in Dehradun. While filing the Service Tax Returns for the period October, 2009 to March, 2010 at the time of payment of service tax, the appellant has inadvertently mentioned service tax registration at their Dehradun Unit for the Kolkata Unit.
3. Later on, during the course of investigation, it is found that the payment made by the appellant did not match with the registration of the Kolkata Unit. Therefore, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation.
4. The matter was adjudicated. The demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, was also imposed on the appellant.
5. Aggrieved from the said proceedings, the appellant is before us.
6. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions.
7. I find that the appellant has been filing Service Tax Returns regularly and particularly, ST-3 Returns was filed on 24.04.2010 wherein wrong registration number was mentioned. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant has not paid the service tax. In that circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.
8. In view of the above, I hold that the impugned proceedings are not warranted against the appellant and the same are quashed.
9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
