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 - 2013 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (11) TMI 763 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Non-imposition of penalties under Sec. 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider registered since January 1997, failed to file regular returns and pay service tax from 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2004. After paying the entire service tax and interest before receiving a show-cause notice, the appellant appealed against penalties under Sec. 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant cited a Chennai Trade Notice and a Delhi High Court case to support their claim for amnesty from penalties. They argued that penalties exceeding 25% of the duty amount cannot be imposed since they paid the tax and interest before the notice. The appellant contended that the extended period should not apply as there was no intention to evade duty.

Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue opposed the appellant's claim for amnesty, stating that the Extraordinary Taxpayer friendly Scheme (ETFS) did not apply as the appellant was aware of their tax liability. They argued that penalties were correctly imposed due to the appellant's failure to file returns and withholding material information.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the Chennai Trade Notice and found it applicable to non-registered units seeking registration by a specified date, not to already registered units like the appellant. Regarding penalty under Sec. 78, the court ruled that since the appellant paid the tax and interest belatedly, there was no intention to evade duty, thus setting aside the penalty. However, the court upheld the penalty under Sec. 76 for non-filing of statutory returns.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal only to the extent that penalty under Sec. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was not applicable in this case. The judgment was pronounced on 14.08.13 by Mr. H.K. Thakur.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates