M/S. ORISSA BENGAL TRANSPORT CO. vs ROURKELA

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA

REGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 1

Service Tax Appeal No. 75250 of 2024

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 15/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2022-23 dated 22.12.2022
passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and C.X. Commissionerate, Rourkela, KK-42,
Civil Township, Rourkela – 769 004)

M/s. Orissa Bengal Transport Co.
Plot No. 01, Sundara Basti, Near Primary School,
Kalinga Nagar, Barbil, Keonjhar,
Odisha – 758 035
: Appellant

VERSUS

Commissioner of G.S.T. and C.X.
Rourkela Commissionerate,
KK-42, Civil Township, Rourkela,
Odisha – 769 004
: Respondent

APPEARANCE:
Smt. Shreya Mundhra, Advocate, for the Appellant

Shri Desh Dulal Chatterjee, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent

CORAM:
HON’BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76536 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING: 15.10.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 28.10.2026
ORDER: [PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL]

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned
order whereby a demand of Service Tax amounting to
Rs.3,03,62,750/- (inclusive of cesses) has been
confirmed against them, together with applicable
interest and penalties thereon under the provisions of
the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant,
namely, M/s. Orissa Bengal Transport Company, is
engaged in the provision of transportation services to
various parties, including body corporates and firms.

Page 2 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


During the impugned period viz. Financial Year, 2015-
16, the appellant entertained a bona fide belief that
the services provided or agreed to be provided by it in
relation to such transportation did not occasion any
liability to discharge Service Tax at its own end, in
terms of Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated
28.06.2012, under which the liability to pay Service
Tax in respect of specified GTA services was placed
upon the service recipient under the reverse charge
mechanism. Proceeding on the aforesaid
understanding of the applicable statutory regime, the
appellant neither obtained Service Tax registration
nor filed Service Tax returns during the period in
question. Subsequently, on 23.02.2017, that the
appellant has obtained registration under the Service
Tax provisions.
3. The proceedings culminating in the impugned
order were initiated on the basis of third-party
information received by the Revenue from the Central
Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)/Income Tax
Department in respect of the appellant for the
Financial Year 2015–16. On the strength of the said
information, the Revenue noticed that the appellant
had received an amount of Rs.20,93,98,281/-, which
was alleged to represent consideration towards the
provision of taxable services. It was alleged that,
notwithstanding the aforesaid receipts reflected in the
appellant’s Income Tax records, the appellant had
failed to furnish the relevant documents necessary to
ascertain the nature of the transactions and determine
the precise tax liability arising therefrom. In the
absence of such documents, the Revenue resorted to
the method of best-judgment assessment
contemplated under Section 72 of the Finance Act,
1994, and proceeded to quantify the Service Tax

Page 3 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


liability by treating the gross receipts of
Rs.20,93,98,281/- reflected in the Income Tax Return
as the value attributable to taxable services. On that
basis, a Service Tax liability of the appellant during
the said period was worked out at Rs.3,03,62,750/-,
inclusive of cesses.
4. In the course of the Pre-Show Cause Notice
Consultation held on 05.10.2020, the appellant was
duly represented by its Accountant, Shri Ajay Kumar
Swain, who appeared on its behalf and furnished
sample copies of the work orders and invoices raised
by the appellant upon its clients.
5. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated
21.10.2020 came to be issued to the appellant,
proposing to demand Service Tax amounting to
Rs.3,03,62,750/- (inclusive of cesses), by invoking
the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994,
together with applicable interest under Section 75 of
the said Act and imposition of penalties under Sections
77 and 78 thereof. The proposals in the notice were
founded, inter alia, upon the allegation that the
receipts reflected in the Income Tax records
represented consideration for taxable services and
that the appellant had failed to discharge its
corresponding Service Tax liability.
5.1. The appellant contested the allegations by filing
a written reply dated 22.11.2020, denying the
proposals contained in the Show Cause Notice. The
appellant disputed the demand founded upon the
gross receipts reported in its Income Tax records and
maintained, in substance, that its transportation
activities had to be examined in the context of the
statutory framework governing GTA services and the
reverse charge mechanism prescribed under

Page 4 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated
28.06.2012. The appellant also contended that there
was no basis for invoking the extended period of
limitation and for imposing penalties under the
Finance Act, 1994.
6. Upon adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner of
G.S.T. and C.X., Rourkela Commissionerate, vide the
impugned Order-in-Original No.
15/CCE/S.TAX/RKL/2022-23 dated 22.12.2022,
confirmed the entire demand of Service Tax
amounting to Rs.3,03,62,750/-, inclusive of cesses,
along with interest thereon, by invocation of the
extended period of limitation. The ld. adjudicating
authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,16,000/-
upon the appellant under Section 77(1)(c)(ii) of the
Finance Act, 1994, a penalty of Rs.3,03,62,750/-
under Section 78 of the said Act, and a further penalty
of ₹10,000/- under Section 77(2) thereof. While
arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the ld.
adjudicating authority, inter alia, observed that, in the
absence of consignment notes, it could not be held
that GTA services had been rendered so as to accept
the appellant’s contention that the liability to
discharge Service Tax rested upon the recipients of
the services under the reverse charge mechanism. It
was also held that the appellant had failed to declare
the correct value of taxable services provided by it in
its statutory returns and that such failure was
attributable to an intention to evade payment of
Service Tax.
7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant made various submissions, both on merits
as well as on limitation, which can be broadly
summarized as under: -

Page 5 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


The Adjudicating Authority having itself held that the
services are not GTA service, the transportation of
goods by road is covered under the negative list.
(i) It is submitted that under Section 66B of the
Finance Act, 1994, Service tax is levied on all
services other than those specified in the
negative list (Page 13); under Section
66D(p)(i), services by way of transportation of
goods by road fall in the negative list, except
the services of a goods transportation agency or
a courier agency (Pages 14 to 17); and under
Section 65B(26), a goods transport agency
means any person who provides service in
relation to transport of goods by road and issues
consignment note, by whatever name called,
read with Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules,
1994. Hence, transportation of goods by road is
taxable only when it is the service of a GTA.
(ii) It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority
has accepted that the work orders on record
were placed for transportation (Para 17.3), and
has itself held that the services “cannot be
construed to be a GTA service by any stretch of
imagination” (Para 17.4). Once the service is
held not to be GTA service, the transportation of
goods by road falls within Section 66D(p)(i).
The Impugned Order does not examine this
entry at all, and instead confirms the demand
under forward charge on the ground that the
Appellant has not proved that the receipts fall
under the negative list (Para 21). Hence, the
demand is contrary to the Adjudicating
Authority’s own finding.

Page 6 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


(iii) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following
rulings:
• M/s. Kalyani Transco v. Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, Rourkela, Final Order No.
75740/2025 dated 19.03.2025, 2025 (3) TMI
1103 - CESTAT KOLKATA
• M/s. Anil Moharana v. Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, Final Order No.
76377/2026 dated 06.10.2026, 2026 (10) TMI
715 - CESTAT KOLKATA
• M/s. Devendra Nath Mahato & Sons v.
Commissioner of CE & ST, Dhanbad, Final Order
No. 75644/2026 dated 21.05.2026, 2026 (5) TMI
1667 - CESTAT KOLKATA
The demand on the entire receipts in the CBDT data,
without identifying any taxable service, is not
sustainable.
(i) It is submitted that the SCN demanded Service
tax at 14.5% on the entire receipts of Rs.
20,93,98,281/- reflected in the CBDT data,
without abatement and without specifying the
taxable service allegedly rendered. The
Adjudicating Authority framed the issue as
whether the activity was GTA service “or any
other taxable service” (Para 15.2,), held that it
was not GTA service, and did not identify any
other taxable service. Instead, it held that under
the Negative List regime “it is not important to
know the exact nature of service” and treated
the entire receipts as taxable (Para 21).
(ii) It is submitted that the burden of establishing
that the receipts are consideration for a taxable
service is on the Department. The work orders
and invoices on record relate to transportation
of iron ore fines by road, and the Department
has not brought on record any evidence of any

Page 7 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


other service. Hence, the demand based solely
on the CBDT data is liable to be set aside.
(iii) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following
ruling:
• M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of
CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, Final Order
No. 75291/2026 dated 24.02.2026, 2026 (2) TMI
1276 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Without prejudice, even if the services are treated as
GTA services, no Service tax is payable by the
Appellant, as the liability is on the service recipients
under reverse charge.
(i) It is submitted that in terms of Paragraph
I(A)(ii) read with Sl. No. 2 of the Table to
Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012
(Pages 20 to 26), issued under Section 68(2) of
the Finance Act, 1994 (Page 18), where the
person liable to pay freight for services provided
by a goods transport agency is, inter alia, a
factory registered under the Factories Act,
1948, a body corporate or a partnership firm,
the entire Service tax is payable by such person
and not by the service provider.
(ii) It is submitted that the service recipients named
in the work orders and invoices on record,
namely M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., M/s.
Brahmani River Pellets Ltd., M/s. Arya Iron &
Steel Co. (P) Ltd., M/s. Auroglobal Comtrade
Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. BTM Exports Ltd., are
companies. The work orders themselves record
that “Service Tax will be paid by the End User
and Transporter is not liable for the same” and
“Service Tax Paid by Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.”.
The Adjudicating Authority recorded this plea of

Page 8 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


the Appellant, but, after holding that the
services are not GTA service, confirmed the
demand under forward charge without deciding
this plea (Para 21). Hence, no Service tax can
be demanded from the Appellant in any event.
(iii) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following
rulings:
• M/s. Kalyani Transco (supra)
• M/s. Pioneer Filing Station v. Commissioner of
CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, Final
Order No. 76379/2026 dated 06.10.2026, 2026
(10) TMI 638 - CESTAT KOLKATA
That extended period of limitation is not invocable.
(i) It is submitted that the SCN dated 21.10.2020
for FY 2015-16 was issued beyond the normal
period, solely on the basis of data received from
CBDT. The receipts were reflected in the Income
Tax Return data, and the work orders
themselves record that Service tax was to be
paid by the end user. The Department has not
brought on record any evidence of suppression
with intent to evade payment of tax. Hence, the
demand is barred by limitation.
(ii) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following
ruling:
• M/s. S.K. Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
CGST, Dibrugarh, Final Order No. 76009/2026
dated 05.08.2026, 2026 (8) TMI 332 - CESTAT
KOLKATA
7.1. In view of the above submissions, it is argued
by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the impugned
demand, along with interest and penalties thereon,
deserves to be set aside in its entirety, being
unsustainable on facts and in law.

Page 9 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


8. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized
Representative appearing for the Revenue, while
reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned
order, submitted that the appellant had failed to
obtain Service Tax registration and discharge its
statutory obligations during the relevant period,
despite having received substantial amounts towards
the provision of taxable services. It was contended
that, in the absence of consignment notes and
adequate documentary evidence establishing the
applicability of the reverse charge mechanism, the
appellant’s claim that the Service Tax liability
devolved upon the service recipients could not be
accepted. It was further submitted that, having failed
to declare the correct value of taxable services and
discharge the consequential tax liability, the appellant
had rendered itself liable to the demand quantified
under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994, along with
interest and penalties under the relevant provisions of
the said Act. It is accordingly the Revenue’s stand that
the suppression of material particulars, coupled with
the failure to comply with the statutory requirements,
justified invocation of the extended period of
limitation. Thus, the Ld. Authorized Representative of
the Revenue contended that the impugned order
warrants no interference.
9. Heard the parties and considered their
submissions.
10. We find that in this case, the appellant had
claimed that during the Financial Year 2015–16, their
services are liable to be treated as Goods Transport
Agency (GTA) services, so as to attract the reverse
charge mechanism in terms of Notification No.
30/2012-Service Tax dated 28.06.2012. The Revenue
sought to deny this on the ground that due to the

Page 10 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


absence of consignment notes, the services in
question fall outside the ambit of GTA services and are
consequently liable to Service Tax at the appellant’s
end.
10.1. In this context, we take note of the fact that
during the impugned period viz. Financial Year
2015-16 (falling under the Negative List Regime),
Section 66D(p)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994,
specifically excluded from the levy of Service Tax
services by way of transportation of goods by road,
except where such transportation was undertaken by
a GTA or a courier agency. On a careful consideration
of the statutory framework, we find that the mere fact
that the appellant undertook transportation of goods
by road does not, by itself, render the activity liable
to Service Tax. The nature of the service actually
provided must first be ascertained, for the statutory
scheme draws a material distinction between
transportation undertaken by a Goods Transport
Agency and transportation by road falling outside that
category. Where the activity is confined to the
provision of a vehicle or the carriage of goods by a
truck operator, without the service provider
undertaking the obligations characteristic of a GTA,
the service would not, merely by reason of the
transportation of goods, attract the levy of Service
Tax during the relevant period.
10.2. In the present case, the ld. adjudicating
authority has itself acknowledged that the work orders
placed on record pertained to transportation services.
More significantly, at paragraph 17.4 of the impugned
order, the adjudicating authority has categorically
observed that the services rendered by the appellant
“cannot be construed to be a GTA service by any

Page 11 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


stretch of imagination”. This finding assumes
considerable significance in determining the taxability
of the very activity in respect of which the demand
has been confirmed. Having declined to recognise the
services as GTA services, the ld. adjudicating
authority was required to examine the legal
framework vis-a-vis applicability of Section 66D(p)(i)
of the Finance Act, 1994, which has not been done.
Despite the above observations, the demand has been
confirmed vide the impugned order. It is well settled
that in the absence of ‘consignment notes’, services
cannot be considered GTA services, and therefore, the
demand for Service Tax raised for the said period, for
such transportation services rendered, cannot be
sustained in law.
10.3. The aforesaid view finds support from the
decision in the case of M/s. Kalyani Transco v.
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & C.Ex., Rourkela [Final
Order No. 75740 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 in Service
Tax Appeal No. 75271 of 2025 – CESTAT,
Kolkata=2025 (3) TMI 1103 – CESTAT, Kolkata],
wherein it was held as under: -
“6. In this case, we find that the appellant is a
proprietorship concern and has not issued any
consignment note. The same has been recorded by
the ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order,
which is as under:
When asked about the consignment note, he
produced various delivery challan in some of
the challan Purchase order was mentioned
along with the vehicle numbers, challan
number weight details. He further added that
from the details of the Purchase order the rate
of transportation can be ascertained. In some
of the delivery challan, P.O details were not
mentioned wherein he asked for some time to
give the details since the period involved is
2016-17."

Page 12 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


The Id. Adjudicating Authority further observed that
the appellants have been awarded with the work of
transporting by the various parties to various
destinations during the period 2016-17 and the
appellant has submitted invoices raised against the
consideration received from various service
recipients. He further recorded that the services
provided by the appellant to various entities as
mentioned herein above, do not classify under the
category of "Goods Transport Agency" as per Clause
(26) of Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1944 w.e.f.
01.07.2012 read with Rule 4B of the Service Tax
Rule, 1994. Admittedly, the Id. Adjudicating
Authority found that the appellant is not the GTA. In
that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay
service tax under Section 66D (p) of the Act., which
exempts services by way of transportation of goods
by road except the services of goods transportation
agency or courier agency. Admittedly, it has been
held that the appellant is not the Goods Transport
Agency, therefore, the said service falls under
negative list as per Section 66D (p) of the Finance
Act, 1994.
...
8. In that circumstances, we find that the demand
of service tax against the appellant on transportation
of goods by road, who has not issued consignment
note and being not GTA, is not liable to pay service
tax, therefore, whole of the demand of service tax is
set aside. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on
the appellant.”
10.4. The same view has also been expressed in the
case of M/s. Anil Moharana v. Commissioner of CGST
& Central Excise, Bhubaneswar [Final Order No.
76377 of 2026 dated 06.10.2026 in Service Tax
Appeal No. 76543 of 2024 – CESTAT, Kolkata =2026
(10) TMI 715 - CESTAT KOLKATA]. In the said case,
the Tribunal observed that a transporter who has not
issued consignment notes cannot be considered to be
a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for the purposes of
Section 65B(26) of the Act and thus not liable to
Service Tax.

Page 13 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


11. In view of the above factual position and by
relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that the
transportation services rendered by the appellant, not
being GTA services, are not leviable to Service Tax in
terms of Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act, 1994. The
demand confirmed, merely by treating the gross
receipts as consideration for taxable services, is
therefore liable to be set aside.
12. Further, from a perusal of the impugned order,
we find that the ld. adjudicating authority has also
recorded that the appellant failed to produce work
orders/agreements/other supporting documents in
respect of the entire consideration received during the
relevant period, pertaining to the CBDT Data/ITR
during the Financial Year 2015-16. The Revenue has,
accordingly, sought to sustain the demand by relying
upon the gross receipts reflected in the said data. We
find that in the instant case, the Show Cause Notice
has demanded Service tax @ 14.5% on the entire
receipts reflected in the CBDT data, without specifying
the taxable service allegedly rendered by invoking the
extended period of limitation and by treating the
entire receipts as taxable. It is to be noted that the
primary burden of establishing that the amounts
received by the appellant represent consideration for
a taxable service, exigible to Service Tax under the
Finance Act, 1994, rested upon the Department. The
mere reflection of receipts in the appellant’s Income
Tax records may furnish a basis for initiating an
inquiry, but cannot, by itself, directly establish either
the taxable character of those receipts or the precise
nature of the services allegedly rendered. The
statutory liability to pay Service Tax must be founded
upon the identification of a taxable service and the
application of the relevant charging provisions

Page 14 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


thereto. Even otherwise, it has been held in a catena
of decisions that in cases where the demand is raised
mechanically on the basis of difference between ST-3
Returns and CBDT data, without any independent
investigation as to the nature of services rendered,
there can be no basis for invoking the extended period
of limitation in such cases. It is a fact that the very
basis of the impugned demand is the gross receipts
available in the CBDT/Income Tax data filed by the
assessee/appellant. Such receipts were reflected in
the records available to the tax administration and
were, therefore, amenable to verification by the
Department. There is no independent investigation
establishing that the appellant had deliberately
concealed the nature of its activities, withheld
material particulars with an intent to evade payment
of Service Tax, or otherwise engaged in conduct
satisfying the statutory conditions for invoking the
extended period. In fact, from the facts before us as
well as the submissions made, we find that the
appellant’s failure to obtain registration or file returns
during the relevant period was due to a bona fide
belief/understanding, especially considering the
documentary evidence submitted during the course of
adjudication proceedings. In the absence of any
affirmative evidence demonstrating the requisite
intent to evade tax, the mere non-disclosure of the
receipts in statutory returns cannot be treated as
sufficient justification for invoking the extended
period. In the present case, the Revenue has failed to
demonstrate that the circumstances contemplated by
the proviso to Section 73(1) were present so as to
justify recourse to the extended period. Hence, we are
of the opinion that the invocation of the extended

Page 15 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


period of limitation is not sustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
12.1. The aforesaid position finds support in a
plethora of decisions wherein, for demands raised on
the basis of data received CBDT/Income Tax
Department, the invocation of the extended period
has been held to be unsustainable, in the absence of
independent evidence of suppression or intent to
evade payment of tax. In the case of M/s. S.K.
Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T.,
Dibrugarh [Final Order No. 76009 of 2026 dated
05.08.2026 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75626 of 2024
– CESTAT, Kolkata=2026 (8) TMI 332 – CESTAT,
Kolkata], it was observed by the Bench, under similar
circumstances, that: -
“11.2. What assumes even greater significance is the
admitted absence of any independent investigation
preceding the issuance of the impugned Show Cause
Notice. Except for noticing the alleged difference
between the figures reflected in Form 26AS and
those appearing in the ST-3 Returns, the
Department has not undertaken any enquiry
whatsoever to ascertain the precise nature of the
receipts, the taxability thereof, the contractual
arrangements, the accounting treatment adopted by
the appellant, or whether the differential figures
represented taxable consideration at all. No
independent evidence has been brought on record
to establish any positive act of fraud, collusion, wilful
misstatement or deliberate suppression attributable
to the appellant. The entire edifice of the Revenue's
case thus rests upon a mere comparison of figures
contained in statutory documents already available
within its own domain.
11.3. Such an approach, in our considered opinion,
falls substantially short of the statutory threshold
required for invocation of the extended period under
the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,
1994. The proviso is in the nature of an exceptional
provision and cannot be pressed into service merely
because a discrepancy is subsequently noticed by

Page 16 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


the Department during scrutiny of records. The
Legislature has consciously conditioned its
invocation upon the existence of fraud, collusion,
wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or
contravention of statutory provisions with intent to
evade payment of tax. These jurisdictional facts
cannot be presumed; they must be affirmatively
established by cogent and convincing material. In
the present case, no such material is forthcoming.
The Revenue has, in effect, sought to substitute its
own failure to undertake timely scrutiny of statutory
returns with an allegation of suppression against the
assessee. Such a course is legally impermissible.
The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked
to compensate for administrative inaction or
departmental oversight. It is equally well settled
that where an assessee has been regularly filing
statutory returns and the relevant information was
always capable of verification by the Department,
invocation of the extended period becomes wholly
unsustainable in the absence of independent
evidence establishing conscious concealment or an
intention to evade tax.”
[Emphasis supplied]
12.2. Similar was the view taken in the case of
Mohammed Fajlur Haque v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T.
and C.Ex., Malda [Final Order No. 75412 of 2026
dated 19.03.2026 in Service Tax Appeal No. 76356 of
2024 – CESTAT, Kolkata]. The relevant observation
therein is reproduced below: -
“10. Further, I also find force in the contentions
raised by the appellant that the demand confirmed
in the impugned order is not sustainable on the
ground of limitation. The demand in the present case
has been raised for the period 2014-15 whereas the
Show Cause Notice came to be issued on
17.10.2019, by invoking the extended period of
limitation. Admittedly, the demand has been raised
on the basis of the data received from the Income
Tax Authorities / Form 26AS, without conducting any
independent enquiry so as to ascertain the nature of
service being rendered by the appellant. It has been
held in a catena of decisions that the data available
in Income Tax Returns / Form 26AS loses its
evidentiary value in the absence of any

Page 17 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


corroborative independent evidence. In this case, I
do not find that any evidence has been brought on
record by the Revenue to show that the appellant
has indulged in any activity amounting to
suppression or wilful mis-statement with the intent
to evade Service Tax. Therefore, the allegation of
suppression of facts and wilful mis-statement of
facts for invocation of the extended period of
limitation only on assumptions and presumptions
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, in view of the facts
and evidence available on record, I am of the view
that the demand confirmed vide the impugned
order, by invoking the extended period of limitation,
is liable to be set aside. Thus, the impugned demand
stands set aside on account of being barred by
limitation also.”

12.3. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, therefore, we are of the view that the Revenue
has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to
establish the ingredients necessary for invoking the
proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Accordingly, without prejudice to our findings on the
merits of the demand, we hold that the extended
period of limitation has not been validly invoked in the
present case. Consequently, the entire demand of
Service Tax is unsustainable and deserves to be set
aside on this count, being barred by limitation.
13. Accordingly, in view of the discussions
hereinabove, we also find no sustainable basis for the
imposition of penalties upon the appellant in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the
said penalties imposed upon the appellant are set
aside.

Page 18 of 18

Appeal No.: ST/75250/2024-DB


14. In the result, the impugned order is set aside.
15. The appeal stands allowed, with consequential
relief, if any.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2026 )



(ASHOK JINDAL)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)



(K. ANPAZHAKAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sdd