2019 (2) TMI 762 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of late fee - failure to file ST-3 returns within due time - appellants submit that they could not file the returns electronically due to system failure and they had submitted the returns manually - Held that - Though, the appellants were not able to upload the returns electronically, they have filed the returns manually - Though, it is stated in para 10 that the appellants have not produced any evidence that they have taken the problem to the department, I find that the appellants have produced screen shots of the returns filed to the department, which bears the signature of the officer concerned. The department having acknowledged the manually filed returns, ought to have taken steps to help or assist the appellants to solve the problem. Thus, the appellants cannot be found fault in the present case for the cause of delay in filing the returns. The demand of late fee cannot be sustained for the periods from 7/2012 to 9/2012, 10/2012 to 3/2013 and 4/2013 to 9/2013 also - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in providing 'Stock Broker Service,' were issued a show cause notice for failing to file ST-3 returns within due time, leading to a proposed demand for late fee. The original authority confirmed the demand, which was partially set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), upholding it for certain periods. The appellants contested this decision before the Tribunal.

The appellants argued that they faced difficulties in electronically uploading the ST-3 returns for the disputed period and had informed the department about it. They submitted manually filed returns with acknowledgments, attributing the delay to system failures beyond their control. Despite this, the demand for late fee for specific periods was upheld by the authorities.

The Authorized Representative supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellants should have approached the department to resolve the uploading issue. Due to the lack of evidence showing such communication, the demand for late fee for certain periods was upheld as the delay was considered the appellants' fault for not filing the returns on time.

The Tribunal considered whether the demand for late fee was justified, given the circumstances. It noted that the appellants had filed returns manually with acknowledgments from the department, even though they faced electronic filing challenges. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the late fee demand for some periods but not for others, without providing a clear rationale. The Tribunal found that the appellants had taken steps to file the returns and that the department should have assisted them in resolving the electronic filing issue.

Following subsequent hearings and lack of clarification from the department, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for late fee for the remaining periods could not be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order was modified to set aside the late fee demand for those periods, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in setting aside the late fee demand for certain periods based on the appellants' efforts to file the returns manually and the lack of departmental assistance in resolving the electronic filing challenges.