9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 120 - AT - Service TaxNon-filing of ST-3 returns - Bonafide belief - business of maintenance/house keeping of NTPC guest house - Contravention of provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - period from April, 2008 to September, 2008 and October, 2008 to March, 2009 - HELD THAT - The appellant assesse was registered with the Service Tax Authorities and was filing the ST-3 Return right from April, 2006 to March, 2008. Thereafter, the appellant entertained a view that they are no more liable to pay service tax and stopped filing ST-3 Returns without giving any intimation to the Department. It is my considered view that the appellant assesse should have intimated the Department by filing either NIL ST-3 Returns or an intimation explaining the reasons for non-filing of service tax returns. Similarly, the adjudicating authority should have called for the details and further when an appeal was already pending before the first Appellate Authority for the period April, 2006 to March, 2008, they should have waited for final outcome of the Appellate Order. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter in denovo proceeding after calling for the details from the appellant assesse and also wait for the order of the first Appellate Authority in an appeal, which is pending for the period April, 2006 to March, 2008 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Allegation of contravention of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for non-furnishing of ST-3 Returns. 2. Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming service tax demand for a specific period. 3. Appeal against the decision of the first Appellate Authority setting aside the Order-in-Original. 4. Appellant's contention regarding the arbitrariness of the decision by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Justification of proceedings initiation by the Revenue for non-filing of ST-3 Returns. Analysis: 1. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice for not submitting ST-3 Returns for a specific period, alleging contravention of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant argued that they provide various services related to maintenance and housekeeping, and had stopped filing returns after a certain period without informing the authorities. The Tribunal noted that the appellant should have either filed NIL returns or provided reasons for non-filing, and the adjudicating authority should have sought details before initiating proceedings. 2. The appellant had appealed against the Order-in-Original confirming service tax demand for a previous period. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had stopped filing returns without intimating the Department, and the matter was pending before the first Appellate Authority for the preceding period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo proceedings after receiving the Appellate Order for the previous period. 3. The first Appellate Authority had set aside the Order-in-Original, leading to an appeal by the Department. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority instead of allowing the Department's appeal. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to wait for the Appellate Order from the Commissioner (Appeals) for the preceding period before deciding on the matter. 4. The appellant contended that the decision by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was arbitrary, pointing out anomalies in the order. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments made by the appellant's advocate and set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the need for proper communication and procedural adherence in such cases. 5. The Revenue justified the initiation of proceedings against the appellant for non-filing of ST-3 Returns, stating that even NIL returns should have been filed. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and highlighted the importance of communication and waiting for pending appellate decisions before taking further actions.
|
