👍👍👍👍👍CESTAT sets aside Revenue’s Demand for Extended Period in Absence of Malafide Act for Service Tax Evasion

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/cestat-sets-aside-revenues-demand-for-extended-period-in-absence-of-malafide-act-for-service-tax-evasion/273686/

lipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/cestat-sets-aside-revenues-demand-for-extended-period-in-absence-of-malafide-act-for-service-tax-evasion/273686/

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), sets aside the Revenue’s Demand for Extended Period in the absence of malafideact for the service tax evasion.

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) is liable to pay service tax on the rent recovered towards renting of shops, godown, office etc. to the commission agents/ traders under the head of renting of immovable property service.

Jigar Shah, counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti wherein the demand forextended period has been set-aside on the ground that there is no malafide on the part of the assessee to evade service tax liability and further submitted that in respect of demand if any arise, the appellant may be extended the cum-tax value and the same may be re-quantified by giving the benefit of cum-tax value principle.

Himanshu P Shrimali, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal of Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and C L Mahar, Member (Technical) observed that “Since the same facts and legal issue of the appellant’s case involved in the above decision, the Tribunal held that the demand for the extended period is not sustainable on the ground that there is no malafide act to evade service tax.”

“In the present case the issue involves the same law as well as the facts, the demand for extended period shall not sustain. Accordingly, we set-aside the demand of service tax for the extended period. As per settled legal position on the issue of cum-tax value, the appellant is eligible for such benefit” the Bench concluded.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Agriculture Produce Market Committee vs C.CGST & CEx- Gandhinagar

CITATION:   2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 467

Counsel for Appellant:   Shri Jigar Shah

Counsel for Respondent:   Shri Himanshu P Shrimali

Be the First to get the Best

Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox

Email Address *

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s