2019 (2) TMI 1779 - HC - Service Tax

Interest for delay in payment of service tax - Board's Circular No.5/5/94 dated 11.10.94 - whether the respondent is liable to pay interest for the delayed payment of service tax? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal on examining the factual position found that when the journal slips were issued for the period from 05.10.1994 to 14.10.1998, the same were issued to the Department of Telecommunication Services, which is a Central Government Department. The Tribunal referred to an earlier decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of G.M.TELECOM BSNL vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2003 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . The Revenue has not been able to point out before us as to how the said decision cannot be applied to the case on hand. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the entire matter revolves around the factual controversy, which has been dealt with by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order on interest payment for delayed service tax by a central government organization.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging an order passed by the Tribunal regarding interest payment for delayed service tax by a central government organization. The substantial question of law was whether interest should be paid for the delay in payment of service tax by the organization. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the organization, citing its status as a Central Government Department during the relevant period and a previous decision supporting the same. The Revenue contended that interest should be paid due to delays in remittances, but the Tribunal found that the organization had deposited the service tax into the Consolidated Fund of India on a daily basis. The High Court examined the Tribunal's order and the arguments presented. It noted that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law and factual circumstances in determining that no substantial question of law arose in the case. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

This case involved a dispute over the liability of a central government organization to pay interest for delayed service tax payment. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the organization, considering its status and daily remittances to the Consolidated Fund of India. The Revenue argued that interest should be paid due to delays, but the High Court found no merit in the appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and correctly applied the law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.