Page 220 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

714 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
Demand (Contd.)
restricted within the normal period of limitation, which would be re-
quantified by the Original Adjudicating Authority - Section 11A of
Central Excise Act, 1944 — Sun National Transport Co. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. &
S.T., Noida (Tri. - All.) .................................. 445
— Limitation - Extended period - Suppression of facts - Appellant engaged
in business and already registered for Service Tax aware about the
requirement of law for its registration and payment of Service Tax - Fact
of nature of act attracting definition of ‘Real Estate Agent’ revealed
during course of enquiry only - Appellant not shown specific source from
which income received though income showed in books of account
which is a clear act of suppressing correct facts - Extended period
invocable - Period of limitation to be counted from the date of knowledge
of Departmental Authority - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Chhattisgarh
Steel Castings (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (Chhattisgarh) ................... 70
— Limitation - Failure by Appellate Tribunal to consider issue of limitation -
Issue of penalty to arise only after decision on issue of limitation - Order
set aside and direction to Tribunal to facts of case and rival contentions
on touch stone of provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 and to
adjudicate — Commissioner of CGST and C. Ex., Nagpur-I v. ANE Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(Bom.) ......................................... 180
— Limitation - Invocation of extended period - In view of fact that entire
details of transaction had been intimated by appellant to department by
its various communications, extended period of limitation not applicable
- Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Foxteq Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of
GST & C. Ex., Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) ........................... 470
— Non-accountal of import goods - VAT department directed to conduct
thorough investigations on reported misuse of importer’s Import Export
Code (IEC) before confirming demand - See under EVASION OF VAT .... 21
— Site Formation Services vis-à-vis Real Estate Agent services - Show cause
notice and adjudication order - Vagueness therein - Classification of
services - In instant case owners of land assigning exclusive rights to
appellant to develop land mass and sell individual plots for which part
consideration was payable to owners - Show cause notice issued by
department, while mentioning both of aforesaid services having been
rendered in a composite manner, totally vague inasmuch as it failing to
classify aforesaid activity under any of aforesaid individual services -
Thus statutory provision on principles of classification of composite
services viz. service with specific description, essential character or
mentioned first in various sub-clauses of Section 65(105) of Finance Act,
1994 not adhered to at all in SCN - Consequent adjudication order also as
confusing as SCN inasmuch as at different places, adjudicating authority
has confirmed demand under different heads - Obligatory for
Adjudicating Authority to have specifically classified service for
confirming demand - Impugned order, in addition to merits, set aside on
this account - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Ess Gee Real Estate Developers
Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur (Tri. - Del.) ...................... 486
Departmental Circulars - Binding nature - Trite law that such Circulars are
only binding upon tax authorities and not upon assessee - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Bansal Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of
SGST (Cal.) ....................................... 63
— Scope of - Such circulars cannot take away vested right of taxpayer
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  316