Page 57 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE-I v. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA 383
pression of fact on part of assessee, non-payment of tax not to fall within defi-
nition of ‘wilful misstatement’ or ‘suppression of fact’, so as to attract extended
period of limitation as indicated in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994 - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 11]
Interpretation of statutes - Invocation of larger period of limitation -
Intention on part of assessee to evade payment of tax to be gathered from con-
tents of show cause notice or any other attendant circumstances - Same to de-
pend on facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula
prescribed in this regard - Also, initial burden on revenue to establish or prove
that ingredients prescribed under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994, present - In absence of which, invoking of extended period
of limitation to be impermissible - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 11]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Pradyaumna G.H., Advocate, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment per : Aravind Kumar, J.]. - This appeal has been admitted on
23-4-2016 to consider the following substantial questions of law :
(a) Whether the CESTAT under the facts and circumstances of the case
is right in holding that since there can be two views as whether the
service provided by the respondent is Management or Business
Consultancy or not and therefore may not be appropriate to invoke
extended period particularly after concluding that the services ren-
dered by the respondent is Business Consultancy?
(b) Whether the impugned order of the CESTAT is legally sustainable
in giving a finding that since the respondent is a Government or-
ganization, the extended period is not applicable?
(c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT
is right in restricting the demand only for normal period without
discussion and finding with regard to culpability of the respondent?
2. It would be appropriate to notice at this juncture itself that question
No. 1 being co-related to question Nos. 2 and 3, appeal came to be admitted. In
other words, there is no need or necessity to answer question No. 1 distinctly as
it would be covered while answering question Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal can be crystallized as
under :
3.1 Respondent is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act and is engaged in providing services to industrial entrepreneurs
interested in industrial investment in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the
medium and large scale sector from the stage of investment proposal to the even-
tual implementation of the project. The respondent is an investment promotion
and facilitation agency of the Government of Karnataka for grant of approvals
and sanction of infrastructure facilities for the approved projects.
4. Based on the intelligence input gathered by the officers of the appel-
lant, issued a show cause notice to the respondent on 20-4-2012 alleging thereun-
der that respondent was evading payment of service tax on the taxable service
since services rendered by the respondent would fall under the category ‘man-
agement or business consultancy service’ as per the provisions of Section
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  177