2013 (12) TMI 258 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - Rent-a-cab service - Held that - there is no justification for imposing penalties both under Sections 76 and 78. We notice that Delhi High Court in Bajaj Travels Ltd. v. C.S.T. - 2011 (8) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT has considered this issue and concluded that imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78, prior to amendment of Section 78 with effect from 16.5.2008, operated in two different fields and penalty was imposable under both provisions separately, even if the violations were committed in course of the same transaction or arose out of the same act - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with conditional order leading to appeal dismissal and subsequent restoration.
2. Service tax demand confirmation, interest recovery, and penalties imposition.
3. Interpretation of rent-a-cab service in the context of vehicle supply agreements.
4. Application of relevant case laws in determining taxable rent-a-cab service.
5. Assessment of willful suppression and intent to evade tax for penalty imposition.
6. Justification for penalties under Sections 76 and 78 pre-amendment.

Issue 1:
The judgment addresses the non-compliance with a conditional order that led to the dismissal of the appeal, followed by the subsequent restoration of the appeal due to the belated deposit of the required amount by the petitioner.

Issue 2:
The case involves the confirmation of service tax demand, interest recovery under Section 75, and imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Assistant Commissioner, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 3:
The dispute revolves around the interpretation of the rent-a-cab service provided by the petitioner as a scheme operator supplying vehicles to BSNL under various agreements, including the collection of service charges without remitting the service tax during the period in question.

Issue 4:
The judgment discusses the application of relevant case laws, such as the Madras High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments, to determine the taxable nature of the rent-a-cab service provided by the petitioner based on the control and possession of the vehicles.

Issue 5:
The assessment of willful suppression and intent to evade tax is crucial for the imposition of penalties, with the petitioner arguing a lack of conscious contravention, which the judgment rejects based on previous considerations in similar cases.

Issue 6:
Regarding the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78, the judgment refers to the Delhi High Court's decision pre-amendment, concluding that penalties under both sections can be imposed separately, even if arising from the same transaction, which is upheld against the petitioner in this case.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of adjudication and penalties imposed, with no costs awarded. The judgment extensively analyzed each issue, applying relevant legal principles and case laws to reach its decision.