Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

May 2011

(2011) 21 STR 500 (Guj.) — CCEx. v. Steel Cast Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Adjudication order not containing specific finding on suppression — Question of facts — Already answered by Tribunal — Question of law does not arise — Appeal dismissed.

Facts:
The assessee applied for registration under the category of ‘management consultancy services’. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the application and issued a show-cause notice invoking extended period of limitation. Adjudicating order did not record any specific finding as regards suppression of facts and value thereof. The respondents appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that the revenue was reflected in the balance sheet and therefore, there was no suppression of facts. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal with the issue.

On appeal, the Tribunal held that though the services fall under ‘management consultancy services’, the extended period of limitation is not justified in view of bona fide interpretation of law, entertaining belief and due to confusion prevailing during the period under consideration.

Held:
The matter in relation to ‘suppression of facts with intent to evade tax’ was a question of facts which was already answered by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the Revenue did not put any contrary arguments to findings of Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

(2011) 31 STT-51 (Delhi) — Pearey Lal Bhawan Association v. Satya Developers (P) Ltd.

(2011) 21 STR 503 (Tri.-Chennai) — Nagappa Motors v. CCEx., Madurai.