2018 (5) TMI 1304 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 77 and 78 - Manpower Recruitment or supply Agency services - Security Agency Services - reverse charge mechanism - service tax with interest paid before issuance of SCN - Held that - when the appellant has paid the service tax along with interest before the issue of SCN, the authority should not have issued the SCN and the case of the appellant is covered by the provisions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax on 'Man Power Supply services and security services' under reverse charge mechanism.
2. Applicability of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act regarding issuance of show-cause notice for penalty after payment of service tax and interest.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a Ltd Company, failed to pay service tax on 'Man Power Supply Services' and 'Security services' under reverse charge mechanism, leading to a demand for payment of ?1,78,228/- inclusive of cess on the total value of services received between 01/07/2012 to 03/09/2012. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the demand and imposed a penalty of ?1,88,228/- under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the order was contrary to binding judicial precedent and that payment of service tax and interest before the show-cause notice should preclude penalty imposition. The Tribunal considered the submissions and the precedent cited, ultimately holding that the impugned order was unsustainable in law due to the payment made before the notice, thereby allowing the appeal of the appellant.

Issue 2: The crux of the second issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, which states that if service tax and interest are paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice, no penalty should be imposed. The appellant relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to support this argument. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the precedent, concluded that the appellant's case fell within the purview of Section 73(3) and that the show-cause notice should not have been issued once the tax and interest were paid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the applicability of the legal provision and the precedent cited during the proceedings.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore pertained to the imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of arguments and legal provisions, ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of compliance with payment requirements before the issuance of show-cause notices for penalties.