2013 (11) TMI 863 - AT - Service Tax

Stay application - Demand of service tax - Transport of Goods by Road & Cab Operators - Held that - On scrutiny of the documents of M/s Durgapur Steel Plant, it was revealed that the applicant had failed to discharge service tax on the said services. The ld. Commissioner after careful consideration and discussions of evidences on record and the Balance Sheets of the respective years, came to a finding that the applicant had failed to discharge the service tax at the appropriate rate, even though they have received the taxable value from such services being rendered to M/s Durgapur Steel Plant during the Financial years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The Commissioner rightly concluded that the applicant is liable to pay service tax - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of service tax, penalty under Section 78, penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of predeposit of service tax amounting to Rs.20,94,060 along with a penalty imposed under Section 78 and other penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue alleged that the applicant had provided services related to Transport of Goods by Road & Cab Operators to a specific entity for a certain period but failed to discharge the corresponding service tax obligations. The Commissioner, after examining the evidence and financial records, found that the applicant had indeed not paid the service tax on the services provided during the financial years 2004-05 to 2008-09. Consequently, the Commissioner determined the liability of the applicant to be Rs.20,94,060 for service tax. The Tribunal acknowledged the Commissioner's findings and directed the applicant to deposit 50% of the service tax amount within eight weeks from the date of the order. The remaining dues would be waived upon this deposit, and recovery proceedings would be stayed during the appeal process. Failure to comply with the deposit directive would lead to the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. The Tribunal disposed of the stay petition accordingly, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with the deposit requirement to avoid adverse consequences.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of fulfilling service tax obligations and the consequences of non-compliance. It highlights the authority of the Commissioner to determine tax liabilities based on evidence and financial records, leading to a directive for the applicant to make a partial deposit to avoid dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities associated with service tax payments and the procedural steps to be followed in seeking waiver or stay of recovery proceedings.