9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 64 - AT - Service TaxAir Travel Agent Service Method of determination of service tax liability Held that service tax is payable on gross commission instead of net commission - Commissioner has rightly held that the appellant had opted to pay tax on the basic fare and having done so, they should pay the tax on the actual basic fare instead of tax on much lower amount declared in the returns under rule 6(7) Suppression of facts upheld extended period of limitation applicable - imposition of penalty under sections 76 and 78 are distinct and separate under two provisions and even if the offences are committed in the course of the same transaction or arise out of the same act, penalty would be imposable both under section 76 as well as section 78
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of service tax and education cess. 2. Appropriation of deposited amounts against tax demands. 3. Imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Invocation of extended period for tax demand. 5. Appellant's plea for waiver or reduction of penalties. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Demand of Service Tax and Education Cess The Tribunal upheld the service tax demands in both appeals. The appellant, an Air Travel Agent, was found to have short-paid service tax by calculating it on net commission instead of gross commission. The appellant declared service tax on a much lower "basic fare," determined through back calculation to match the tax paid on net commission. The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant had opted to pay tax on the "basic fare" as per Rule 6(7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and thus should have paid tax on the actual "basic fare." Issue 2: Appropriation of Deposited Amounts The amounts already deposited by the appellant were appropriated against the tax demands. In Appeal Case No. ST-440/2006, Rs. 45,00,000 was appropriated, and in Appeal Case No. ST-111/2006, Rs. 29,000 was appropriated against the interest demanded. Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties - Penalty under Section 76: The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 76, stating that the appellant failed to discharge full service tax liability by the due date, resulting in short payment. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 100 per day in Appeal No. ST/440/06. - Penalty under Section 77: The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 77, as no instance of non-filing of returns was brought to record. - Penalty under Section 78: The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 78, finding that the appellant had suppressed facts and misdeclared the "basic fare" to evade tax. However, the penalty was reduced to 25% of the service tax demand, as the appellant had paid the entire service tax along with interest before the adjudication order, in line with the Delhi High Court's judgment in K.P. Pouches (P.) Ltd. Issue 4: Invocation of Extended Period for Tax Demand The Tribunal found that the extended period for confirming the service tax demands was rightly invoked. The appellant's conduct indicated suppression of a significant short payment of tax, justifying the extended period. Issue 5: Appellant's Plea for Waiver or Reduction of Penalties The appellant argued that the shortfall in tax payment resulted from a misunderstanding of the method of calculation and not from any mala fide intention. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant had deliberately misdeclared the "basic fare" and manipulated records. The plea for waiver of penalties was not accepted, but the penalty under Section 78 was reduced to 25% of the service tax demand, considering the appellant's payment of tax and interest before the adjudication order. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals, upholding the service tax demands with interest, setting aside the penalty under Section 77, reducing the penalty under Section 76 to Rs. 100 per day in one appeal, and reducing the penalty under Section 78 to 25% of the service tax demand in both appeals.
|
