Commissioner Central GST And Cx Agra vs. M/S. Ganpati Mega Builders(INDIA)PVT. LTD. Agra

Held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved in the impugned order of the CESTAT. The Court found that the CESTAT had made findings of fact regarding the absence of wilful suppression of facts and the exempted nature of the work performed by the respondent-assessee. The Court also noted that these findings were based on a detailed discussion and reference to settled legal positions and previous judgments. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT's decision. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that it did not raise any substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, read with Section 83 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1994 and Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and CX Agra (appellant) appealed against an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside a final order concerning Service Tax Appeal No. 70671 of 2016. The original assessment order was passed by the assessing officer for the period 2009-10 to 2013-14. The assessing officer invoked an extended period of limitation, alleging wilful suppression of facts and fraud with the intent to evade tax. The CESTAT, however, found no wilful suppression of facts, rendering the extended period of limitation unavailable. It also held that the work carried out by the respondent-assessee, M/s. Ganpati Mega Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., was exempted, referencing its earlier decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT erred in holding that there was no wilful suppression of fact by the respondent-assessee, thereby precluding the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the relevant provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1994 and the Central Excise Act, 1994? 2. Whether the CESTAT correctly determined that the nature of work carried out by the respondent-assessee was exempted from service tax, based on its findings of fact and settled legal position? Contentions: Petitioner (Commissioner Central GST And Cx Agra): The appellant contended that the assessing officer had correctly invoked the extended period of limitation due to wilful suppression of facts and fraud by the assessee, aiming to evade tax. The appellant likely argued that the CESTAT's finding of no wilful suppression was erroneous and that the work performed was not exempted. Respondent (M/s. Ganpati Mega Builders(India)Pvt. Ltd.): The respondent argued, as upheld by the CESTAT, that there was no wilful suppression of facts. They also contended that the services rendered were exempted, and the CESTAT's reliance on its previous decisions regarding exemption was appropriate.