2007 (10) TMI 39 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty Default in payment of service tax amounts to Rs. 1,93,400 Penalty u/s 76 was Rs. 81,429, u/s 77 was Rs. 1,000 and u/s 78 was Rs. 20,000 as already reduced by Comm.(A) Already less than the maximum prescribed amount under the respective provisions Penalty can not be reduced further

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding demand and reduced penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant provided 'Rent-a-cab Scheme Operator' services to various clients. The Revenue found that the appellant was not registered for taxable services and did not pay the service tax despite receiving payments. A show cause notice was issued stating the total payments received from clients and the service tax amount due but unpaid. The appellant did not disclose providing taxable services even after a High Court decision confirming liability to pay service tax for such services. The appellant continued to receive payments until the show cause notice was issued. The liability to pay service tax and penalties under Sections 75, 76, 77 & 78 of the Act was established. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties, which were later reduced by the appellate Commissioner. The penalty under Section 76 for non-mens rea involvement was reduced to Rs. 81,429, while the penalty under Section 78 for mens rea involvement was reduced to Rs. 20,000. The imposition of penalties was analyzed concerning the nature of non-payment and mens rea involvement. The penalty under Section 78, although lower than the minimum prescribed, was upheld as not challenged by the Revenue. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the penalty imposition under Section 76 not warranting interference.

This judgment highlights the importance of complying with tax obligations, disclosing taxable services, and the imposition of penalties based on the nature of non-payment and mens rea involvement. The reduction of penalties by the appellate Commissioner was analyzed in light of the provisions of Sections 75, 76, 77 & 78 of the Act. The incongruity in penalty amounts under Sections 76 and 78 was discussed, emphasizing the aggravated form of non-payment under Section 78 involving mens rea. The penalty imposition under Section 78, lower than the prescribed minimum, was upheld due to lack of challenge by the Revenue. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the penalty under Section 76 not exceeding the total amount due, despite the potential for higher penalties under Section 78 for mens rea involvement. The judgment serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with tax obligations and the significance of disclosing taxable services to avoid penalties and legal repercussions.