9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 25 - AT - Service TaxService Tax - Short payment - Penalty cannot be reduced or waived in case where revenue got details from recipient of services and assessee challenges the same
Issues: Liability for service tax and penalties for non-payment.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, registered as a service provider in 1998, failed to pay service tax on payments collected from a customer. Authorities discovered this non-payment during an investigation and issued a show cause notice for the shortfall. The appellant contested the notice on grounds of limitation and others. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, a decision upheld by the appellate authority, leading to the current appeal. 2. The appellant requested a decision on the case's merits, which was considered during the appeal hearing. The records revealed that the appellant, a security service provider, did not disclose the payments received for services rendered. Upon investigation, the appellant admitted to receiving the payments, failing to fulfill their obligations as a registered service provider. The appellant only partially paid the tax liability confirmed by the adjudicating authority, delaying full payment until after the initial order. 3. The appellant did not contest the tax imposition but attempted to challenge the show cause notice's timing as a technicality. The department obtained information on non-payment from the recipient of the appellant's services. The appellant's failure to disclose the receipts and address discrepancies directly with the authorities weakened their case for relief. The failure to pay the confirmed demand promptly affected any potential leniency in penalty imposition. 4. The presiding judge, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, found no grounds to overturn the order-in-appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's lack of cooperation, delayed tax payment, and failure to address discrepancies promptly. The judgment was pronounced on 26-4-2006.
|
