Page 221 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 691
opportunity of hearing to assessee - Section 39 of Karnataka Value Added
Tax Act, 2003 — Suma Oil Agencies v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru
(Kar.) .......................................... 92
Recipient of services under GST - Consideration payer not necessarily
recipient - Notwithstanding that consideration for composite supply of
printing services is being made by a party located abroad, since actual
supply of printed booklets is being made at different destinations in
India, persons receiving these booklets are recipient of services as an
Agent and are thus covered as recipient - Section 2(93) of Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Swapna Printing Works Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. - GST
- W.B.) ......................................... 366
— of transfer of technology services from abroad, scope of admissibility of
exemption from service tax to extent R & D Cess - See under CESS ...... 123
Records - Suppression or falsification of records not established, extended
period not invocable - See under DEMAND ................... 406
Recovery of Dues - Adjustment of refund - Suo motu adjustment - Natural
justice - Unilateral decision to adjust part of sanctioned refund against
disputed interest liability not only violating natural justice but also falls
short of fairness standards expected of statutory authorities - Existence of
power to recover dues not meaning that same can be done suo motu
without grant of hearing - Accordingly, impugned order set aside -
Matter remanded to authorities for consideration afresh after hearing
petitioner and decide issue within eight weeks - Section 79 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India —
DPK Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India (Kar.) .................... 18
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 consultancy’ 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 notice 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 Section 73 ibid - Evasion
of payment of legitimate Service Tax due to Government, only allegation
for contending applicability of extended period of limitation - Also, show
cause notice not stating presence of mens rea on part of assessee -
Assessee neither perpetrated fraud nor there has been any collusion or
wilful misstatement of facts before revenue - In absence of any of said
ingredients 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 limitation 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 — Commr. of Service Tax,
Bangalore-I v. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (Kar.) ........................ 382

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  221