9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 250 - AT - Service TaxCommissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty u/s 80 Rent-a-cab - appellant is sort of illiterate person and may not have been fully aware of the provisions of service tax law - appellant deposited tax & interest voluntarily during the adjudication proceedings and did not challenge liability of the service on their activity service - Further appellant did not even charge service tax from their customers - power conferred u/s 80 to waive penalty has properly been invoked in favour of assessee
Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The judgment revolves around an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the imposition of a penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case involved the provision of rent-a-cab services to BSNL by the respondents. During the adjudication proceedings, the respondent paid the tax voluntarily. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty after considering the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner highlighted that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides relief from penalties if the assessee proves a reasonable cause for the failure. It was noted that the appellant, being relatively illiterate, may not have been fully aware of the service tax law. The appellant voluntarily paid the tax and interest, did not challenge the liability, and did not even charge service tax from customers, indicating good faith. The Commissioner emphasized the need for empathy in implementing service tax laws, considering the appellant's difficult financial situation and the genuine efforts made to comply. The judgment underscores that the law is not merely an intellectual exercise but also involves compassion and reasoning. The power conferred under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 was deemed to have been appropriately invoked in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and consequently rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was made, and the order was pronounced on 26-2-2008.
|
