Page 59 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE-I v. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA 385
of industry, we can take a view that it amounts to rendering of the service
of business consultancy.”
7. Said finding of fact has been accepted by the respondent-assessee in-
asmuch as there is no appeal preferred by the assessee against said finding of fact
as submitted by Sri Jeevan J. Neeralagi, Learned Counsel appearing for appel-
lant.
Re : Substantial questions of law - 2 and 3 :
8. Tribunal, while confirming the demand raised under the Order-in-
Original, has extended partial relief to the respondent namely it has held that
extended period of limitation which was sought to be invoked by the revenue
was inapplicable in the facts obtained in the instant case. Under Section 73 of the
Act, the revenue is attempting to invoke extended period of limitation to contend
or to buttress its arguments that respondent-assessee is liable to pay service tax
on the demand made beyond the period of one year. As such, we are of the con-
sidered view that it would be necessary to extract Section 73(1) of the Act, which
reads as under :
“73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or
short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any service tax has not
been levied or paid or has been short- levied or short-paid or erroneously
refunded, the Central Excise Officer may, within thirty months from the
relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax
which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-
paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made,
requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified
in the notice:
PROVIDED that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or
has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of-
(a) fraud; or
(b) collusion; or
(c) wilful mis-statement; or
(d) suppression of facts; or
(e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the
rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of ser-
vice tax,
by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of
this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words thirty months, the
words “five years” had been substituted.
Explanation. - Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a
court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid
period of thirty months or five years, as the case may be.”
9. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 73 would indicate that
where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or
short paid or erroneously refunded, the officer within 30 days from the relevant
date can serve a notice on the person chargeable with such service tax requiring
him to show cause why he should pay the amount specified in the notice. In oth-
er words, in the event of contingencies prescribed under sub-section (1) were to
arise, the Central Excise Officer has to initiate proceedings to recover such
amount within 30 months from the relevant date. However, proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 73 provides for extended period of limitation namely, for a
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  179