2010 (3) TMI 404 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty- Delay in payment of tax- Show Cause notice was issued and the original authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 1000/- under Section 77 and the original authority refrained from imposing any penalty under Section 76. Held that- registration not taken and return not filed. Facts recorded in impugned order on absence of confusion not refuted. Impugned order upheld.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order in revision passed by Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Delay in payment of service tax and imposition of penalties under Sections 77, 76, and 84.
- Confusion regarding periodicity of service tax payment due to transition from proprietary concern to limited company.
- Applicability of Section 73(3) and Section 73(4) of the Finance Act in cases of delayed payment.
- Interpretation of obligations of a limited company versus a proprietary concern.
- Consideration of genuine grounds for delayed payment and applicability of Section 80 benefits.

Analysis:
- The appeal was made against the Commissioner's order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, regarding delayed payment of service tax by a limited company that transitioned from a proprietary concern. The appellant failed to register and file timely service tax returns, leading to penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 84, while the Commissioner refrained from imposing a penalty under Section 76 due to lack of mala fide intent.
- The appellant argued confusion in the transition's aftermath, citing cases and a trade notice to support their claim that the show cause notice should not have been issued post-payment of service tax and interest. However, the Revenue contended that the confusion was not genuine, emphasizing the obligations of timely tax payment and return filing for both limited companies and proprietary concerns.
- The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the transition from a proprietary concern to a limited company does not excuse non-compliance with tax payment and return filing obligations. The Commissioner's decision to impose penalties was upheld, as the appellant's actions did not qualify for relief under Section 80 of the Finance Act.
- The Commissioner's detailed findings highlighted the appellant's failure to meet tax payment deadlines and file returns, undermining the claim of confusion as a genuine cause for the delays. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case did not fall under the provisions of Section 73(3) as argued, affirming the Commissioner's penalty imposition under Section 84.
- Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to overturn the Commissioner's order and rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling tax obligations regardless of the entity's transition from a proprietary concern to a limited company.