2011 (4) TMI 484 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - wavier of penalty u/s 80 - commercial training and coaching services - Held that in terms of section 80, no penalty is to be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred to in the Act, if the assessee shows that there were reasonable causes for such failure - That being the initial period of levy of service tax, there was lot of confusion in the field and it can be safely concluded that there was no malafide on the part of the assessee - Mere failure on the part of the assessee to get themselves registered with Service Tax Department to pay service tax by itself cannot be considered to be a malafide on the part of the assessee - Appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of service tax liability under commercial training and coaching services category, imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Confirmation of Service Tax Liability:
The Appellate Tribunal found that a service tax amount of Rs.34,51,446/- was confirmed against the appellant for providing commercial training and coaching services from 1.7.2004 to 31.3.2006. The Additional Commissioner had imposed penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the tax and penalties, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant did not dispute the service tax confirmation, which they had paid along with interest before the show cause notice. However, the challenge in the appeal was against the penalties imposed. The appellant, operating from a small town in Rajasthan, argued that they were unaware of the change in tax exemption status for computer education services. They voluntarily paid the service tax upon being informed by visiting officers. The appellant contended that the penalties were unjustified, citing lack of malafide intent and immediate compliance upon knowledge of tax liability.

Arguments and Rulings:
The appellant's advocate argued that the penalties should be set aside under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to reasonable causes for the failure to pay tax. The Revenue countered, alleging malafide due to the appellant's failure to seek registration or advice. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's location in a remote area, coupled with initial confusion regarding tax exemptions, indicated no malafide intent. The appellant's voluntary payment of tax and lack of registration were not sufficient grounds for malafide. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, while confirming the service tax liability.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's non-payment of service tax was due to reasonable causes, justifying the invocation of section 80 to set aside the penalties. The service tax liability was confirmed, but the penalties were deemed unwarranted. As a result, the appeal was disposed of with the penalties being overturned.