2018 (11) TMI 87 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - non-payment of service tax - Tour Operator Service - period October, 2007 to March, 2012 - Held that - Demand raised against the appellant as a result investigations made at the end of the service recipient and on the basis of the records maintained by service recipient. There was no disclosure of providing such services by the appellant and no service tax was paid by them. Learned advocate has not been able to give any justifiable reasons as to why the tax was not being deposited with the Revenue during the relevant period - there is no justification for setting aside of penalty, which already stands reduced to 25% - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of service tax demand against the appellant for Tour Operator Service.
2. Imposition of penalties under Sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Appeal against the penalties imposed by the Original Adjudicating Authority.
4. Benefit of abatement under Notification No.01/2006-ST.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, registered under the category of 'Tour Operator Service', faced a service tax demand for the period October 2007 to March 2012. The demand was based on scrutiny revealing non-payment of service tax by the appellant for services provided to M/s IFFCO Phulpur, Allahabad. The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand of ?5,53,530 along with interest. Penalties under Sections 78 and 77 were imposed, with an option for reduced penalty payment within a specified period.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order but set aside penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The appellant, through their advocate, acknowledged the service tax and interest but contested the penalties. They argued that the original demand did not consider the benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST. The High Court directed a re-quantification, resulting in the current demand. The appellant sought penalty waiver due to confusion regarding abatement benefit non-granting.

3. The Revenue countered, stating the demand pertained to the period in question and penalties were justified due to non-payment during that time. The Tribunal found no dispute on the facts, confirming the demand period and lack of tax disclosure by the appellant. The advocate's failure to provide justifiable reasons for non-payment led to upholding the 25% penalty, as the appellant had paid the service tax, interest, and part of the penalty.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, maintaining the penalty imposition. The decision highlighted the appellant's failure to deposit tax during the relevant period, leading to the penalty justification. The appeal was dismissed based on the upheld penalties and the appellant's compliance with the payment requirements.