Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2010 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (11) TMI 418 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Service tax payment on reimbursement charges.
2. Service tax liability on services provided to call centers.
3. Invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act.
4. Justification for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered service tax payer as practicing chartered accountants, did not pay service tax on Rs. 82,444 shown as "out of pocket expenses." The authorities confirmed the service tax, and the appellant sought to set aside the penalty without challenging the confirmation.

2. Another service tax amount of Rs. 7,695 was confirmed against the appellant for services provided to call centers, claimed as exempt during the relevant period. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's plea due to insufficient evidence justifying the claim, leading to the confirmation of the tax and interest.

3. The appellant argued for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, citing bona fide doubts regarding service tax payment. However, the Commissioner found the delay unjustified as the appellant was registered under the relevant category, indicating awareness of tax provisions. The lack of evidence showing attempts to clarify doubts and the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse led to the rejection of invoking Section 80.

4. The Commissioner justified the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78, stating that separate penalties under different provisions were appropriate, referencing a relevant case law. The appellant's failure to include certain amounts from customers for services and not paying tax on Rs. 24,970 without justification further negated the need for invoking Section 80.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected based on the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence, justifying the penalties imposed, and the lack of grounds for invoking Section 80. The judgment was pronounced on 8-11-2010 by Member (J) Archana Wadhwa.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates