2018 (7) TMI 1285 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of Interest - huge amounts shown under unaccounted receipt - delayed payment of tax - Held that - It is on record that the service tax amount collected by MTNL has been paid to the Government only after delay. Hence, the charging of interest is upheld - demand of Service tax along with interest and penalty is also upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding unaccounted receipt in balance sheet for 2001-02, 2002-03.
2. Reconciliation of accounts by the appellant.
3. Demand of service tax and interest by the adjudicating authority.
4. Appeal against the Order-in-Original No 25/2010.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the unaccounted receipt found in the balance sheet for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The departmental officers scrutinized the balance sheet during an audit and identified significant amounts under "unaccounted receipt." The appellant explained that this discrepancy was due to the non-identification of subscribers by the computer system, which printed incorrect contact numbers on telephone bills. The initial Order-in-Original 12/2007 demanded service tax exceeding ?11 crores. However, upon appeal to the Tribunal, the order was set aside, and the issue was remanded for reconsideration based on the detailed reply provided by the appellant. Subsequently, in the de novo proceedings, a substantial portion of the demand amounting to ?10.90 crores was dropped after successful reconciliation by the appellant, while a smaller amount of service tax of ?7.70 lakhs was still demanded.

2. The appellant argued that since the demand for service tax was dropped, there was no justification for imposing interest. However, upon review, it was observed that although the service tax amounts were collected by the appellant along with consideration for services rendered and remitted to the government, there was a delay in payment. The adjudicating authority noted an average delay of two months between collection and payment of service tax, based on which interest was charged. The Tribunal found this decision to be fair and reasonable, upholding the charging of interest. Consequently, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty was upheld based on the delayed payment by the appellant.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was based on the delay in remitting the service tax collected from subscribers to the government, justifying the imposition of interest. The appellant's argument that dropping the service tax demand should preclude the imposition of interest was not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind upholding the impugned order.