2008 (8) TMI 186 - HC - Service Tax

Whether the Tribunal was justified in waiving of penalties under Sections 75A 76 77 and 78 when the demand of service tax has been fully confirmed earlier order of tribunal on impugned issue is in favour of assessee while subsequently LB of the Tribunal hold that tax is payable on impugned services - There was reasonable justification for the assessee for not paying service tax at the initial stage - No mens rea - no illegality has been committed by tribunal in setting aside the penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of waiving penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Tribunal without providing reasons.
2. Validity of setting aside penalties by the Tribunal after upholding the demand of service tax.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court concerned the Tribunal's decision to waive penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 without stating reasons, despite confirming the demand for service tax. The respondent, a consignment agent, was assessed for services provided to M/s. TISCO Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand and imposed various penalties, including interest and fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties based on a previous Tribunal order in a similar case. However, the Tribunal upheld the service tax demand but set aside the penalties due to a different interpretation in another case. The Revenue contended that once the service tax demand was upheld, there was no justification for setting aside the penalties.

2. The High Court disagreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that the earlier Tribunal order favored the assessee, leading to a reasonable justification for not paying the service tax initially. The Tribunal's subsequent decision upholding the service tax demand was based on a larger Bench ruling, which clarified the taxability of the services provided. The Court found no mens rea or intentional wrongdoing on the part of the assessee and deemed the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalties as legally justified. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the case.