9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Service TaxService by way of selling sim cards, mobile connections and recharge coupons delay in payment of tax tax paid before SCN there was dispute on levy of tax on the service of the appellant so intention to evade duty is absent so penalty u/s 78 is not justified appellant didn t avail amnesty scheme upto November, 2004 but got registered in the month of December, 2004 delay in filing the return and payment of tax and penalty under Section 75A, 76 and 77 are justified
Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Sections 75A, 76, 77, and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The appellants were engaged in providing services to a company by selling sim cards, mobile connections, and recharge coupons, earning commission from these sales. They registered in December 2004 and paid taxes in March 2005 for the period July 2003 to March 2005. The appellant claimed that they deposited the tax before the show cause notice was issued and applied for an amnesty scheme valid until November 30, 2004. The appellant argued that there was no intent to evade tax, attributing the delay in payment to confusion regarding tax liability. The Department contended that the appellant failed to avail the amnesty scheme and that there was a suppression of facts leading to short levy of tax. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed paid the tax before the show cause notice was issued. It was noted that the appellant registered in December 2004 and filed the return in March 2005. The Tribunal acknowledged the confusion regarding tax liability but observed that the appellant did not take advantage of the amnesty scheme available until November 30, 2004. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no deliberate intent to evade tax, leading to the setting aside of the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. However, the Tribunal upheld penalties under Sections 75A, 76, and 77 due to the delay in filing returns and paying taxes. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with the penalty under Section 78 being set aside, while other penalties were upheld.
|
