Page 140 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

58 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
Demand - Limitation - Suppression or misstatement of facts - Income
arising from the services rendered by assessee and reflected in Balance Sheet
and Profit and Loss Account which are public documents - Invocation of ex-
tended period of limitation for raising demand based on figures shown in
such public documents, not sustainable - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para
6]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Avon Awning v. Commissioner — 2017 (51) S.T.R. 33 (Tribunal) — Relied on ............................... [Para 5]
Commissioner v. Kamal Lalwani — 2017 (49) S.T.R. 552 (Tribunal) — Relied on ........................... [Para 6]
Commissioner v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. — 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 32 (All.) — Relied on ........... [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bipin Garg and Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocates, for
the Appellant.
Shri Mohd. Altaf, Asstt. Commr. (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - As per facts on record, the
appellant is engaged in providing advertising services, for which he is duly reg-
istered with the Service Tax department.
2. The appellant’s balance sheet/profit and loss account for the period
October, 2005 to March, 2010 was scrutinized by the Revenue and as the same
was reflecting excess income, a view was undertaken that the appellant was
evading payment of Service Tax. Accordingly they were asked by their jurisdic-
tional Superintendent to provide an explanation. The appellant replied that their
business operations consists of two different parts - one making of sale and sup-
ply of material chargeable under VAT and the other is for installation, repair or
advertising board and endorsement of cricketers. Whereas they are discharging
their Service Tax liability on installation of hoardings etc. as also on endorsement
of cricketers, no Service Tax is being paid by them on sale and supply of printed
flags and glow-sign boards. They explained that for sale and supply of flags they
have not given any creative component and they have merely carried out opera-
tions on the instruction of client for merely printing the given material on the
flags printer. The soft copy of the file is provided by their customers and they
have not even entitled to change a dot of the design. There is no creativity in-
volved and they act merely as a printer. In such a scenario they contended that
the said activity is not covered by the advertising agency activity and the same
would not be chargeable to Service Tax.
3. However, the appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 1-4-
2011 raising demand of Service Tax of Rs. 55,28,870/- on the said activity. Fur-
ther tax of around Rs. 1.30 lakhs was raised in respect of GTA services, so re-
ceived by them, on reverse charge basis. Further Service Tax of Rs. 2,87,623/-
was demanded in respect of the miscellaneous income so received by the appel-
lant in their balance sheet. The notice also proposed confirmation of interest and
imposition of penalties. The said show cause notice stand culminated into the
impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
4. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and after
going through the impugned orders we find that the appellants have undertaken
the following three services :-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  140