Page 56 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

382 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
and finding of fact had been recorded pertaining to failure on part of the peti-
tioners therein to file/submit Form GST Tran-1 by the GST Council.
35. In view thereof, the directions given in the judgments relied on by
Learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners
now, once under the directions of this Court a finding with regard to the same
has come on record.
36. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference as sought
by the petitioners is made out in the present writ petitions. The petitions are ac-
cordingly dismissed.
37. No order as to costs.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 382 (Kar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar and N.S. Sanjay Gowda, JJ.
COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE-I
Versus
KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA

Central Excise Appeal No. 9 of 2015, decided on 2-1-2020
1
Recovery/Demand of Service Tax - Extended period, invocation of -
Wilful misstatement or suppression of fact, absence of - Assessee, investment
promotion and facilitation agency of Government of Karnataka - HELD : Two
views as to whether service provided to be ‘management’ or ‘business consul-
tancy’ or not, cannot be ground on which Department may invoke extended
period of limitation - Ingredients indicated in proviso at Clauses (a) to (e) of
Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, neither invoked while issuing show cause no-
tice nor Department contending that non-payment of Service Tax by reason of
any clause mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) to proviso of sub-section (1) of Sec-
tion 73 ibid - Evasion of payment of legitimate Service Tax due to Govern-
ment, only allegation for contending applicability of extended period of limi-
tation - Also, show cause notice not stating presence of mens rea on part of as-
sessee - Assessee neither perpetrated fraud nor there has been any collusion or
wilful misstatement of facts before revenue - In absence of any of said ingre-
dients present, invoking of extended period of limitation not to arise - Also, in
terms of negative list issued by appropriate Government in exercise of vested
power under Section 66D ibid, assessee not liable to pay Service Tax at all -
Tribunal, just and correct and question of applying extended period of limita-
tion not to arise - Demand raised for restricted normal period as prescribed
under sub-section (1) of Section 73 ibid proper - Section 73 of Finance Act,
1994. [paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Interpretation of statutes - Invocation of larger period of limitation -
Until and unless show cause notice not alleging wilful misstatement or sup-

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2015 (38) S.T.R. 839 (Tribunal).
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  176