2018 (5) TMI 1232 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 77 and 78 - Respondent a public authority have not obtained service tax registration and have not paid the service tax - Held that - the respondent being a public authority has no special interest or benefit in concealing the facts from the department and as soon as they were told by the Department that they are liable to pay duty they have paid the duty along with interest - in the case of Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh 2008 (11) TMI 87 - CESTAT NEW DELHI it was held that no penalty can be imposed in the case of such statutory or government body as there could not be any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dropping of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking Section 80.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in renting immovable property and Mandap Keeper Services, did not obtain service tax registration or pay service tax. A show-cause notice demanded amounts under different services and imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalties, which the appellant appealed.

2. Arguments by Revenue:
The Revenue contended that relief under Section 80 was not legal, citing precedents and circulars. They argued that the appellant suppressed taxable service value, contravening laws, justifying the penalties under Section 78 due to alleged suppression.

3. Defence by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the Commissioner rightly invoked Section 80, as they had cooperated with authorities, paid due taxes and interest promptly. They highlighted that penalties were unwarranted for a local authority like them, citing specific instances and legal precedents supporting penalty waivers for such entities.

4. Analysis of Impugned Order:
The Commissioner (A) justified waiving penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 by invoking Section 80, emphasizing the appellant's lack of intent to evade taxes and their prompt compliance upon notification. The order noted the public authority status of the assessee, lack of mala fide intentions, and the absence of proof of deliberate suppression by the Revenue, aligning with legal principles exempting penalties for government bodies.

5. Judgment:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the absence of malice or intent to evade taxes by the appellant, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the dropped penalties. The decision was based on the appellant's status as a government entity, their prompt tax payment, and the lack of evidence supporting deliberate concealment of facts to evade taxes.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision rested on the principles of fairness, lack of malice, and the special considerations accorded to public entities in tax matters. The judgment highlighted the importance of intent and compliance in determining penalty waivers, ultimately affirming the Commissioner's decision to drop penalties under Section 80.