2017 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Service Tax

GTA services for the outward transportation of goods - non-payment of tax due to unawareness - Held that - The appellant does not have any valid contention to establish that there was sufficient ground for non-payment of Service Tax. The ignorance of law cannot be considered as an excuse for non- payment of tax. In view thereof, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order upholding demand, interest, and penalty for failure to pay service tax on GTA services.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the demand, interest, and penalty related to the non-payment of service tax on GTA services availed by the appellants from 01-01-2005 to 31-10-2008. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest, and penalty imposed under Section 78 but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76.

The appellant's consultant argued that the appellant was not aware of the obligation to pay service tax on GTA services and had no intention to evade payment, requesting leniency regarding the penalty. On the other hand, the department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that ignorance of the law could not excuse the appellant from paying the duty, interest, and penalty.

The tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found that the appellant failed to provide valid grounds for the non-payment of service tax. Ignorance of the law was not accepted as a valid excuse for non-payment of tax. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the order demanding payment of service tax on GTA services, along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalty imposed under Section 76 was set aside. The appellant's plea of ignorance of the law was not considered a valid defense, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.