Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 94 - AT - Service TaxCargo handling services - port services - failure to pay tax - demand of tax interest and penalty - section 80 - Held that - it has to be stated there is absolutely no defence put forward by the appellant in regard to liability for payment of service tax and interest. The only contention put forward is that the default in paying tax occurred because there was a delay in reconciliation of the amounts received for the service of cargo handling and GTA service, as the GTA services were discharged under the reverse charge mechanism. This is not a reasonable ground to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act for setting aside penalty imposed. The appellant being a registered service provider is bound to maintain internal accounts and at least avoid delay after the first show-cause notice - demand justified - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
Issues: Liability for service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant, engaged in cargo handling and port services, failed to discharge service tax liabilities for specific periods, leading to show-cause notices and subsequent confirmation of demands, interest, and penalties by the original authority and Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant did not dispute the service tax liability but attributed the default to delays in reconciling amounts received for services. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appellant's reasoning, stating no reasonable cause for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act. The Judicial Member, after hearing both sides, noted the appellant's lack of defense regarding service tax and interest payments. The appellant's argument of delays in reconciling amounts for cargo handling and GTA services was deemed insufficient to justify setting aside the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Emphasizing the appellant's obligation as a registered service provider to maintain internal accounts and avoid delays, the Judicial Member upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, the case was initially scheduled for a stay application hearing, but due to the appeal's age, both the appeal and stay application were disposed of together during the hearing, effectively concluding the matter.
|