2015 (9) TMI 477 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of penalty - service tax and interest were paid before issue of show cause notice - scope of section 73(3) - Held that - it is seen that the matter is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Limited 2011 (9) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , had held that assessee is not liable to pay any penalty under such circumstances - Levy of penalty u/s 78 set aside. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the appellants for non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time.
- Interpretation of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding the payment of service tax and penalty.
- Justification of penalty imposed by lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty
The case involved the appellants who were engaged in providing barges and tugs on hire basis but failed to pay appropriate service tax in time. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and imposed penalties under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested the penalty imposition, stating their willingness to pay the tax liability and attributing the delay to financial constraints. The appellants had paid a significant amount towards service tax, cess, and interest even before the issuance of the show cause notice, demonstrating their cooperation and intention to comply with tax obligations.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 73(3)
The learned Chartered Accountant argued that Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides relief to taxpayers who voluntarily pay service tax and interest before the issuance of a show cause notice. He emphasized that once the tax and interest are paid and information is furnished to the authorities, no penalty should be imposed as per the provisions of the Act. Citing a relevant decision by the Karnataka High Court, it was highlighted that authorities should not initiate penalty proceedings against taxpayers who have paid tax and interest promptly, as mandated by the law.

Issue 3: Justification of Penalty
The Revenue's Authorized Representative refuted the arguments, asserting that the appellants' failure to pay service tax on time constituted a violation of the Act, justifying the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and referencing the Karnataka High Court decision, concluded that the penalties imposed were not warranted in this case. The Tribunal set aside the penalties under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 73(3) and directing the tax authorities to avoid unnecessary harassment of compliant taxpayers.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the original order, absolving the appellants of the imposed penalties, thereby disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellants based on the provisions of Section 73(3) and relevant legal precedents.