2018 (5) TMI 607 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - interest on delayed payment - tax paid belatedly after being pointed out, but interest on such delayed payment not paid - reason for such delay shown by appellant is financial difficulty - Held that - The ground raised by the appellant that they had financial difficulties, on account of which the appellant could not pay the service tax, is not a valid ground as they have collected the service tax from their customers - the Tribunal in the case of Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (7) TMI 595 - CESTAT, MUMBAI has held that financial crisis is not a reasonable cause for failure to pay tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's failure to pay service tax and interest for the period from 2008-09 to June 2009.
2. Appellant's appeal for waiver of penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to financial difficulties.
3. Interpretation of Section 80 of the Finance Act and its applicability in the present case.
4. Comparison of decisions supporting waiver of penalties versus decisions supporting penalty imposition.
5. Assessment of whether financial crisis is a valid ground for failure to pay tax.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a registered service provider under the category of "Security Agency Service," failed to pay service tax and interest for the period from 2008-09 to June 2009. The Department issued a show-cause notice demanding interest for delayed payment and imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 2: The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) seeking waiver of penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing severe financial problems. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 3: The appellant argued for the waiver of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, claiming financial constraints due to the prolonged illness and untimely death of the Proprietor. The appellant contended that the service tax was deposited before the show-cause notice, and interest was paid before adjudication.

Issue 4: The appellant relied on decisions supporting waiver of penalties, while the Respondent defended the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellant collected service tax but did not deposit it in the Government Treasury, indicating suppression to evade duty payment.

Issue 5: The Tribunal considered the submissions and various decisions cited by both parties. It held that the appellant's financial crisis was not a valid ground for failure to pay tax, citing precedents such as Triton Communication Pvt. Ltd. and Rovion Tourists Promotions. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellant based on the collected service tax not being deposited despite financial difficulties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellant's collection of service tax without depositing it in the Government Treasury for a significant period did not justify the waiver of penalties. The decision was based on legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Finance Act, 1994.