Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 230 - AT - Service TaxLevy of penalty - Tax paid before issuance of SCN - Determination of basis of income shown in the balance sheet which is prepared following accrual method - Held that - Having collected the tax, appellant should have paid the tax to the Government. Having failed to do so, in our opinion, they cannot escape penalty. Nevertheless, the only difficulty which we face in taking the case entirely against the assessee is the observation of the Commissioner in Paragraph 21 which reads as In this regard, I find that the Annexure to SCN is based on the assessee s balance sheet and the same is accounted as direct income for the respective years. When an assessee makes a claim that balance sheet is made on accrual basis and service tax demand cannot be on that basis , if the learned Commissioner makes an observation like this, it would prima facie go in favour of the assessee and it would also disable us from determining the correct duty liability. In this case with great reluctance, we have to remand the matter back to the original authority only because we do not have the details of month-wise receipts of service charges; tax payable; tax paid with interest and the duty of payment; tax and interest - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. - matter remanded back - appellant to deposit 25% of the penalty.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, demand of service tax, payment of service tax, liability to service tax, remand of the matter, pre-deposit of penalty, compliance with penalty deposit.
The judgment addresses the issue of a 6-day delay in filing the appeal, which the learned CA attributed to a mistake on his part. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal. The main issue revolved around the demand of service tax by the department based on the accrual method of income shown in the balance sheet. The appellant contended that they had paid the entire service tax amount with interest before the show-cause notice was issued, and therefore, no further action should have been taken. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the tax payments and noted that the appellants had stopped paying service tax to the Government in a subsequent year. Despite the appellant's awareness of their tax liability, they only paid when prompted by the department, leading the Tribunal to conclude that penalties cannot be escaped for such non-compliance. Regarding the liability to service tax, the Tribunal emphasized that service tax is payable only after the receipt of consideration, and the appellants' argument that the balance sheet was made on an accrual basis did not absolve them of their duty to pay taxes promptly. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely tax payments to avoid penalties and reiterated that collecting tax from customers but failing to remit it to the Government is a violation of the law. The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in determining the correct duty liability due to insufficient details in the records, leading to a remand of the matter back to the original authority for further examination. In deciding on the penalty issue, the Tribunal found the appellant's approach to be against the spirit of the law, emphasizing the need for a pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty amount to ensure compliance and accurate reporting in the subsequent stages of the litigation. Failure to comply with the penalty deposit within the specified timeline would result in the department enforcing the demand as per the original order. The Tribunal stressed the importance of adhering to the legal requirements and providing accurate financial details during the adjudication process to facilitate a fair resolution of the matter.
|