2013 (5) TMI 111 - AT - Service Tax

Payments for taxable service of overseas service provider - appeal against penalties confirmed - Considering the amendment to Section 66A appellate authority waived liability for the period prior to 18.4.2006 but confirmed the liability as assessed for the period subsequent to 18.4.2006 - Held that - Assessee s contention in so far as penalty is confirmed that the failure to remit service tax subsequent to 18.4.2006 is not wilful but on account of a mis-conception of the assessee s liability to remit such service tax is not acceptable as the legislative provision clearly and ambiguously enjoins an obligation on the recipient of the service to remit service tax. There cannot be a plea based on ignorance of a legislative provision. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.7.2008.
2. Confirmation of demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties.
3. Interpretation of Section 66A of the Act pre and post 18.4.2006.
4. Assessment of service tax liability for the period pre and post 18.4.2006.
5. Appeal by Revenue against relief granted to the assessee for the period pre 18.4.2006.
6. Contention regarding penalty imposition post 18.4.2006.
7. Plea for excision of penalty due to misconception of service tax liability.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.7.2008. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties under Sections 75, 76, and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The assessee failed to remit service tax pre and post 18.4.2006, leading to the assessment of tax liability, penalties, and interest.

2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 66A of the Act before and after 18.4.2006. Pre-amendment, recipients of services from overseas providers were not required to pay service tax. However, post-amendment, the obligation to remit service tax was imposed on recipients with establishments in India receiving services from abroad. The assessee failed to comply with this provision both before and after the amendment, resulting in the assessment of tax liability.

3. The appellate authority partially allowed the assessee's appeal, granting relief for the period pre 18.4.2006 but confirming the liability post that date. The Revenue challenged this decision, but eventually conceded that their appeal was misconceived due to the amendment in Section 66A. However, the assessee sought the excision of penalties post 18.4.2006, citing a misconception of their liability to remit service tax.

4. The judgment emphasized that post 18.4.2006, the legislative provision unequivocally mandated the remittance of service tax by the recipient of services. Ignorance of this provision cannot be used as a defense. Consequently, the appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed, with no costs imposed.

5. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with legislative provisions, especially regarding the remittance of service tax obligations. It highlights that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for non-compliance and upholds the assessment of tax liability and penalties as per the statutory framework.