Page 141 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] MEGA TRENDS ADVERTISING LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW 59
(1) Sales and supply of printed flags and glow-sign boards.
(2) Service of installation of hoardings.
(3) Endorsement of cricketers.
Whereas there is no demand in respect of Sl. No. 2 & 3, the demand pertains to
Sl. No. 1. It is seen that the appellants were providing the said services to M/s.
Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., who were paying Service Tax on the supply of
printed flags and the same was being deposited by the appellant. However, in
respect of the supply of printed flags to the other companies, no such Service Tax
was being charged inasmuch as the said buyers were of the view that simply
printing and supply of flags would not be covered by the definition of advertis-
ing agency.
5. The issue to be decided is as to whether such printing of flags with
the advertising material would amount to providing advertising agency services
or not. First of all we make it clear that mere payment of Service Tax in respect of
such supply to M/s. Vodafone, who were not disputing the same, would not
make the appellant’s activity as taxable. The issue is required to be decided inde-
pendently.
Tribunal in the case of Avon Awning v. CCE & ST, Ghaziabad reported as
2017 (51) S.T.R. 33 (Tri. - All.) has held that production of design given by the
client on chosen material such as cloth, PVC sheet etc. would not amount to
providing any service taxable under the category of advertising agency. The is-
sue stands fully covered by the said decision of the Tribunal.
6. Apart from the merits of the case, we also find that the demand is
squarely barred by limitation having been raised by invoking the longer period.
The Revenue has picked up the figures from the balance sheet and profit and loss
account maintained by the assessee. The balance sheet and profit and loss ac-
count has been held to be public documents by various decisions and it stands
concluded that when the income arising from various activities stand reflected in
the said public documents, it cannot be said that there was any suppression or
misstatement on the part of the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limi-
tation. Reference can be made to Tribunal’s decision in the case of C.S.T., New
Delhi v. Kamal Lalwani [2017 (49) S.T.R. 552 (Tri. - Del.)], laying down that extend-
ed period is not invocable if services rendered are reflected in balance sheet and
income tax returns and no evidence stands produced that non-payment of duty
was due to any mala fide. Reference can also be made to Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Tax v. Zee Media Corporation
Ltd. [2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 32 (All.)]. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the show
cause notice itself shows that every details was maintained by the assessee in
usual course of business, the ingredients of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Fi-
nance Act, 1994, establishing any suppression of facts to evade payment of tax
cannot be held to be present and invocation of extended period of limitation was
not correct on the part of the Revenue.
7. Inasmuch as all the demands confirmed by the impugned order re-
latable to different issues stand confirmed by invoking the longer period, we
hold that the impugned order is not sustainable on the said ground. Accordingly
the same is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appel-
lant.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 16-5-2019)
_______
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  141