Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 272 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal rejecting appellant's appeal
- Allegation of non-payment of service tax on charges received from client
- Imposition of penalties under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994
- Appellant's contention of bona fide belief and timely payment of service tax
- Department's allegation of suppression of material facts
- Interpretation of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appellant's appeal, which was based on the allegation of non-payment of service tax on charges received from a client. The appellant, a security agent and manpower supplier, voluntarily registered with the service tax department in 2006 and regularly fulfilled their tax obligations. However, upon scrutiny, it was discovered that service tax was not paid on charges from a specific client, MSEB. Despite promptly paying the service tax and interest upon notification of the lapse, a show cause notice was issued, leading to penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that they believed services to government entities like MSEB were exempt from service tax, hence the oversight. They contended that upon realizing the error, they paid the due tax and interest in good faith before any notice was served. The appellant also presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate and work order with MSEB to support their claim. Citing relevant legal precedents, the appellant sought relief from penalties.

On the other hand, the department alleged that the appellant had suppressed material facts by not disclosing services provided to MSEB until the investigation. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had consistently paid service tax, and the omission regarding MSEB was due to a genuine misunderstanding rather than intentional evasion. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting the department's claim of suppression or malicious intent.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. By invoking Section 73(3) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that since the appellant had paid the service tax and interest before any show cause notice, penalties were unwarranted. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the appellant's good faith compliance and the absence of deliberate wrongdoing in the tax matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates