2009 (12) TMI 457 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty - the appellant is an authority under local body under the Government of Rajasthan. The appellants have let out land on lease and collected charges from the tenants on lease. The Superintendent of Central Excise wrote letters dated 17-5-2006 and 16-6-2006 advising them to pay service tax under sub-section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants thereafter appears to have convenienced the tenants and collected the service tax and paid the service tax on 8-10-2007. The tax dispute relates to the period May, 2006 to September, 2006. original authority imposed penalties u/s 76 and 77. Held that - since assessee had no intention to evade service tax, mistake if any, was under a bonafide and, therefore, by invoking section 80, penalties were to be set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on lease charges collected by the appellant under local body authority. Appellant's request for waiver of penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the service tax liability of the appellant, who collected charges from tenants on lease as an authority under the local body. The Superintendent of Central Excise advised the appellant to pay service tax, which the appellant later collected from tenants and paid to the Department. The dispute was related to the period May 2006 to September 2006. The Original Authority confirmed the service tax, demanded interest, and imposed penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act.

The appellant contended that they had no intention to evade service tax and promptly paid the tax upon receiving advice from Central Excise Authorities. They argued for the invocation of section 80 of the Finance Act for waiver of penalties. The Department reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and highlighted the delay in paying the service tax as a reason for imposing penalties.

Upon careful consideration of submissions, it was noted that the appellant did not dispute the service tax liability and had paid the tax to the Department. The appellant requested a waiver of penalties, which was justified considering their actions in promptly collecting and paying the tax upon advice from authorities. The appellant's registration and filing of returns further supported their plea of bona fide belief. As there was no evidence of an intention to evade service tax, leniency under section 80 of the Finance Act was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the demand for service tax, the order of recovery of interest, and setting aside the penalties imposed under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act.