2014 (4) TMI 958 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty - penalty imposed under sec. 76, 77 & 78 - Held that - appellants are paying service tax regularly as provider of banking and financial services. It was only during the audit, it was found certain discrepancy in respect of service tax. The service tax immediately paid along with interest. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued. In these circumstances, we find that there is no intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of tax and appellants were under the bonafide belief that the appellants were paying appropriate tax. It was only during the audit, certain discrepancy was found. In view of this, we find that the appellants are not liable for any penalty under sec. 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act as per provisions of sec. 80 of the Finance Act. Hence, penalty imposed under the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty, challenge to penalty imposed under sec. 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, interpretation of sec. 80 of the Finance Act, intention to evade payment of tax, discrepancy found during audit, bonafide belief of paying appropriate tax.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty. The applicants had already paid the tax with interest, leading to the waiver of the penalty for the appeal hearing. The appellants did not contest the demand but challenged the penalty imposed under sec. 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act. They were registered as providers of Banking and Financial Services, paying taxes and filing returns as required by law.

During an audit, a discrepancy in service tax payment was discovered, which was promptly rectified by the appellants by paying the due amount along with interest. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued demanding a specific amount, which was partially confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants argued that there was no intention to evade tax, as they promptly paid the tax upon discovering the discrepancy during the audit. They also cited sec.80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides for the waiver of penalty if there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with tax provisions.

The Revenue authorities relied on the findings of the lower authorities, while the Tribunal examined the provisions of sec. 80 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal noted that the appellants regularly paid service tax as required for their services, and the discrepancy was a result of the audit findings, not intentional evasion. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants acted in good faith, believing they were compliant with tax obligations, and promptly rectified the discrepancy upon discovery.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found that the appellants were not liable for the penalty under sec. 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, in accordance with sec. 80 of the Finance Act. Consequently, the penalty imposed was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. The judgment highlights the importance of prompt tax compliance, the significance of good faith efforts, and the provisions for penalty waiver under the relevant tax laws.