2018 (8) TMI 1467 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - appellant paid the Service Tax along with the interest and 25% of the penalty - Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - It is a fact that the appellants has not collected the Service Tax from the service recipients - Further, the entire Service Tax along with interest was paid by the appellants partly before the issue of SCN and partly before the passing of Order-in-Original by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant is an illiterate person, not knowing the provisions of the Service Tax but he paid the Service Tax along with the interest and 25% of the penalty, the remaining penalty on appellant set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of Service Tax on commission received from financial institutions
- Allegation of non-payment of Service Tax and penalty imposition
- Claim of benefit under Section 80 for reasonable cause

Analysis:
1. Applicability of Service Tax on Commission: The appellant, a dealer in two-wheeler automobiles, received commission from financial institutions for promoting loans to customers. The audit revealed non-payment of Service Tax on this commission under the Business Auxiliary Service category. The appellant contended that they had not charged or collected Service Tax from customers but voluntarily paid the tax along with interest. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the tax provisions and relied on a judgment to support their case.

2. Allegation of Non-Payment and Penalty Imposition: The Department issued a Show Cause notice for non-payment of Service Tax, leading to confirmation of the demand, interest, and penalty by the Lower Authority. The appellant paid a portion of the dues before the Order-in-Original and the remaining amount later. The appellant, being illiterate about tax laws, claimed no intention to evade tax and sought relief under Section 80. The AR defended the impugned order, emphasizing the non-collection of Service Tax from customers.

3. Claim of Benefit under Section 80: The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence, noting that the appellant had paid the tax and interest despite not collecting it from customers. Citing a Karnataka High Court judgment, the Tribunal found no intention to evade tax and granted the benefit of Section 80 by dropping the remaining penalty amount. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the appellant's conduct in paying the tax, interest, and part of the penalty, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and reducing the penalty amount.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of Service Tax applicability, non-payment allegation, and the claim for relief under Section 80, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.