2010 (9) TMI 527 - AT - Service Tax

Order-in-Revision under section 84 - Imposing penalty - The assessee claimed that the amenities charges did not belong to his business but to his son. However, no evidence was produced in support of the claim and further, the account specifically shows that the amenities were provided by the assessee - The finding of the revision authority that charge of suppression of taxable value with intent to evade payment of service tax is proved and the assessees have not shown any reasonable cause as required under section 80 of the Finance Act - Hence uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Revision imposing penalty for non-inclusion of amenity charges in assessable value for service tax calculation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, involved a case where an appeal was made against an Order-in-Revision under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the assessee, a proprietary concern engaged in providing 'mandap keeping service'. The issue revolved around the deliberate non-inclusion of amenity charges in the assessable value of the service for computing service tax liability.

The Tribunal considered the facts presented, noting that the profit and loss account of the assessee was prepared based on a ledger account labeled 'Amenities Charges', and income tax was paid on this income. Despite this, the assessee claimed that the amenities charges did not pertain to their business but to their son. However, the Tribunal observed that no evidence was provided to support this claim. Additionally, the account indicated that the amenities were indeed provided by the assessee. The fixed asset schedule in the income tax return showed that the furniture and vessels (amenities) were owned by the assessee, with depreciation claimed on them. Moreover, electricity charges were recorded as an expenditure, further establishing that the amenities charges were collected by the assessee in connection with the mandap keeping service.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's plea of ignorance regarding the inclusion of amenity charges, highlighting that the assessee was well aware of the benefits under Direct Taxes, such as depreciation under the Income-tax Act. It was noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate a bona fide belief for non-payment of service tax. The Tribunal concurred with the revision authority's finding that there was suppression of taxable value with the intent to evade service tax payment. As the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause as required under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of accurately including all relevant charges in the assessable value for service tax calculation and highlighted the need for assessees to demonstrate a genuine belief or reasonable cause for any discrepancies to avoid penalties and uphold tax compliance.