2018 (1) TMI 1510 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty for delay in filing of ST-3 return for 138 days - contravention to the provisions of Section 70 of the Act - HELD THAT - The Appellants have bonafidely filed the half yearly ST-3 Return for the period 04/2012 to 09.2012. In the instant case, since the Appellants were not aware about the change of procedure for filing the quarterly return instead of half yearly and this being merely a procedural lapse, substantial justice cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Penalty imposed for delay in filing ST-3 return
- Contravention of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994

Analysis:
The Appellants filed an appeal against the penalty imposed for a delay in filing the ST-3 return, as per the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow. The Appellants were penalized for a delay of 138 days, amounting to ?11,800, in contravention of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellants contended that they had filed the ST-3 return for the period April 2012 to June 2012 on 12.04.2013, which was required to be e-filed by 25.11.2012. They argued that they were not aware of the change in the filing procedure from half-yearly to quarterly, and thus, the delay was due to a procedural lapse. The Appellants stated that they had submitted a half-yearly return covering the period 4/2012 to 9/2012 on 18.10.2012, and only in April 2013 were they informed about the requirement for quarterly returns. The Appellants claimed that had they been informed earlier, they would have taken corrective measures. The Revenue, represented by the DR, supported the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides and examining the record, found that the Appellants had genuinely filed the half-yearly ST-3 return for the period 04/2012 to 09/2012. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellants were unaware of the procedural change from half-yearly to quarterly filing, leading to the delay. Considering this as a procedural lapse and recognizing that the Appellants acted in good faith, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants was allowed, providing relief from the penalty imposed for the delay in filing the ST-3 return.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of procedural awareness and the need for effective communication between the concerned parties to avoid such lapses. The judgment emphasized the principle of substantial justice and granted relief to the Appellants based on their genuine efforts to comply with the filing requirements, despite the procedural misunderstanding.