2008 (7) TMI 350 - AT - Service Tax

Tax deposited on detection by department - delay in deposit of service tax does not appear to be intentional or deliberate - appellants deposited the service tax before issue of show cause notice - it is also noticed that the appellant is a State Government undertaking and they had no knowledge for levy of tax - Revenue failed to produce any material that the appellants failed to pay the tax by reason of fraud, collusion, etc. - imposition of penalty under Section 78 is set aside - Appeal is al lowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appellants' liability for service tax on GTA services
- Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act
- Modification of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:

1. Appellants' liability for service tax on GTA services:
The case involved the appellants who were engaged in extraction, conversion, and sale of timber, along with manufacturing Rosin, and availing services from a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). Central Excise officers discovered that the appellants had not paid service tax on GTA services for a specific period. Subsequently, the appellants deposited the entire tax amount and obtained registration. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the tax demand and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, along with interest under Section 75. The Commissioner (Appeals) later modified the penalty imposed.

2. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 78 of the Act, which provides for penalties for suppressing the value of taxable services. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered that the delay in tax payment by the appellants was not intentional or deliberate, especially given their status as a Government of Himachal Pradesh undertaking. It was noted that the appellants had deposited the tax before receiving a show cause notice, and being a State Government undertaking, they lacked awareness of the tax liability. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of fraud or collusion by the appellants in failing to pay the tax. Consequently, in the absence of any such material, the Tribunal held that Section 78 could not be invoked, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed under this section.

3. Modification of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty under Section 78 of the Act from the original amount imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Tribunal further reviewed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the imposition of penalty under Section 78 was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants by setting aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the applicability of penalties under the relevant sections of the Act, considering the nature of the appellants' business, their prompt tax payment, and the absence of evidence supporting intentional tax evasion. The decision highlighted the importance of assessing each case's specifics before imposing penalties for non-compliance with tax obligations.