2010 (11) TMI 837 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - Time limitation - Since it is a fact that the appellants have not filed the requisite return, the penalties imposed under Section 77 are in order and the same do not require to be interfered with - Since the appellants have not challenged the applicability of longer period of limitation to the tax demand on the ground of suppression etc., I am of the view that the penalty in respect of the tax demand for the longer period is imposable - The appellants are also required to be given an option to pay 25% of the penalty amount within one month of passing the order as provided under the statute - Appeals are allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Section 77 for non-filing of returns.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 78 in relation to the entire tax demand for both normal and extended periods.
3. Applicability of longer period of limitation and waiver of penalties for the normal period.
4. Requirement to provide an option to pay 25% of the penalty amount within one month of passing the order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the imposition of penalties under Section 77 for non-filing of returns. The appellants had paid the tax demand and interest but had not filed the requisite return, leading to penalties under Section 77. The penalties were deemed appropriate as the appellants failed to fulfill their filing obligations, and thus, no interference was required in this regard.

2. In relation to penalties under Section 78 concerning the entire tax demand for both normal and extended periods, the appellants argued that there was no intention to evade taxes. They promptly paid the tax and interest upon being informed of their liability. The appellants claimed they were not given the option to pay 25% of the penalty amount within one month of the order. The judge considered the arguments and decided to set aside the penalties under Section 78, remanding the matter for quantification of penalty amounts for the extended period and providing the appellants with the option to pay 25% of the determined penalties within one month.

3. The judgment further delves into the applicability of longer periods of limitation for tax demands due to suppression. The judge acknowledged that penalties for the longer period were imposable as the appellants did not challenge the longer limitation period. However, considering the circumstances, the judge decided to waive the penalties for the normal period of limitation. The appellants were directed to be given the option to pay 25% of the penalty amounts within one month of the order, as mandated by the statute.

4. Lastly, the judgment emphasized the importance of providing the appellants with a fair opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order on the quantification of penalty amounts for the extended period. The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the penalties under Section 78 and remanding the matter for further consideration and determination of penalties, while ensuring the appellants' rights to the statutory option for reduced payment within a specified timeframe.