2016 (6) TMI 579 - AT - Service Tax

Imposition of penalty - Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Goods Transport Agency and Renting of Immovable Property - appellant failed to take registration and received rents for the godowns - Held that - the contentions of appellant that it had discharged the service tax liability prior to the issuance of show cause notice. That therefore, as per Sub-section(3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, the imposition of penalties is unjustified. Further that the issue whether Renting of Immovable property is taxable or not was a contentious one. Sub-section (2) to Section 80 was introduced which provided that no penalty shall be imposed if the service tax along with interest on this category is paid within a period of six months from the date of Finance Bill, 2012 receives assent of the President. The appellant had paid the service tax on Renting of Immovable Property prior to the introduction of the said sub-section to Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 are not without merits. Therefore, by following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Sethi Tools Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE & Cus. & ST Vododara 2015 (9) TMI 633 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , the penalty imposed Under Section 78 is not legal or proper and is set aside. However, the penalty of Rs,5,000/- imposed under Section 77 is sustained as the appellant has failed to establish cogent reason for not taking registration. The demand and interest is confirmed. - Decided partly in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-discharge of service tax liabilities under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and Renting of Immovable Property services.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Non-discharge of Service Tax Liabilities:
The appellant, registered under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) and Renting of Immovable Property services, was found to have not discharged service tax liability under GTA services despite registration. Additionally, the appellant had not obtained service tax registration for Renting of Immovable Property, for which summons were issued by the department. Subsequently, the appellant paid service tax on both categories along with interest during the investigation.

2. Contestation of Service Tax Payment and Registration:
A show cause notice alleged non-payment of entire service tax under GTA services and failure to register for Renting of Immovable Property services. The appellant contended that they were entitled to abatement for GTA services, which they had discharged fully after availing abatement. Regarding Renting of Immovable Property services, the appellant claimed they were unaware of the levy and promptly paid the service tax upon notification by the department.

3. Penalties Imposed:
The original authority confirmed the demand along with interest on both categories and imposed penalties of ?5,000 under Section 77 and ?2,34,379 under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order. The appellant challenged the penalties before the Tribunal, arguing that penalties were unjustified as they had paid the service tax liabilities before the show cause notice was issued.

4. Tribunal's Decision on Penalties:
The appellant's counsel contended that penalties should be waived as the service tax liabilities were discharged before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's compliance before the notice, set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78. However, the penalty of ?5,000 under Section 77 was sustained due to the appellant's failure to provide a valid reason for non-registration.

5. Final Ruling and Relief Granted:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order by setting aside the penalty of ?2,34,379 imposed under Section 78, while maintaining the penalty under Section 77. The confirmation of demand and interest was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, in accordance with the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant by setting aside one penalty while upholding another, based on the appellant's compliance with service tax liabilities and the lack of a valid reason for non-registration under specific service categories.