Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTDelhi High Court Bars GST Dept from Invoking Extended Limitation Against Sub-Contractor...

Delhi High Court Bars GST Dept from Invoking Extended Limitation Against Sub-Contractor Amid Service Tax Confusion

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court has barred the GST dept from invoking extended limitation against subcontractors amid service tax confusion as to his liability to pay service tax.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the show cause notice dated 23rd October 2010 issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi is a composite show cause for the entire five years period i.e. 2004 to 2009.

The Appellant, The Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable under the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 

The appeal challenged the order bearing passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT).

The issue raised whether under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Department could have invoked the extended period of limitation of five years for raising a demand on the respondent-assessee. 

Another question which is raised in the present appeal is whether the Respondent as a sub-contractor was liable to pay service tax or not. The said issue was clarified by the Department of Revenue. The circular stated that even sub- contractors were required to pay service tax.

However, during that entire period i.e. 2004 to 2007, there was an uncertainty as to whether service tax would be liable to be paid or not. In view thereof, it appears that the Respondent did not pay the service tax.

The Department submitted that this non-payment constitutes suppression, wilful mis-statement and fraud and hence, invokes the extended period of limitation.

The CESTAT has held to the contrary and is of the opinion that there was a bona fide belief of the sub-contractor i.e. Respondent. 

The court dismissed the appeal and held that since there was no wilful misstatement or fraud and the CESTAT holds the same to be a bona fide belief of the assessee, interference with the impugned order is not warranted in the present appeal.

Case Details

Case Title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Cgst Delhi East Versus M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited

Case No.: CEAC 3/2024

Date: 27th March, 2025

Counsel For Appellant: Shubham Tyagi

Counsel For Respondent: Rajeev Kumar

Read More: Kapil Dev Exempted From Income Tax On Rs. 1.5 Crore Granted By BCCI: ITAT

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 04 November, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for 04 November, 2026.GSTRepeat GST Notice For Same...

Insurance Premium Remitted To Insurer Cannot Be Added To Lender’s Taxable Service Value: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that insurance...

CBIC Directs No Further GST Arrests, Bars Notices Below Rs. 10K And Restricts E-Way Bill Checks [READ INSTRUCTION]

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has directed its field formations...

Participation In Assessment Can’t Cure Time-Barred Scrutiny Notice Under S. 143(2): ITAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed a scrutiny...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 04 November, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for 04 November, 2026.GSTRepeat GST Notice For Same...

Insurance Premium Remitted To Insurer Cannot Be Added To Lender’s Taxable Service Value: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that insurance...

CBIC Directs No Further GST Arrests, Bars Notices Below Rs. 10K And Restricts E-Way Bill Checks [READ INSTRUCTION]

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has directed its field formations...