2012 (12) TMI 580 - AT - Service Tax

Application for Modification - applicant submits that they have paid the entire amount of service tax - waiver claimed of pre-deposit of Duty, Interest and Penalty - Held that - Contention of Applicant was that there was a bonafide belief that they have paid the entire amount of service tax and that the statement was made before this Tribunal on 23/05/2012 on the basis of certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant wherein it has been stated that the demand raised in the show-cause notice, the whole of the service tax has been paid. As per the applicant the amount payable is only Rs. 6,24,51,219/-, which has been paid. But as per Revenue entire amount of service tax in dispute was Rs.18,08,18,228/- In the interest of justice, the applicant directed to make a pre-deposit the balance amount of service tax in dispute apart from already made along with 25% of penalty as directed by this Tribunal by order dated 28/06/2012 within a further period of eight weeks and report compliance. Show-cause notice has been replied by the appellant and they have tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to this Bench, therefore, withdraw the show-cause notice issued to the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking modification of a miscellaneous order, incorrect computation of service tax demands, pre-deposit of service tax amount, discrepancy in payment of service tax, waiver of pre-deposit requirement, misleading the court, contempt of court proceedings.

Analysis:
The applicant sought modification of a miscellaneous order passed by the Tribunal, claiming to have paid the entire service tax amount in advance. They argued that the demands were incorrectly computed based on total gross amounts received, which included amounts already adjusted and other non-taxable items. Supporting documents were presented to demonstrate the alleged overpayment. The Tribunal reviewed the stay order, noting the disputed service tax amount of Rs. 18,08,28,228. Despite the applicant's assertion of full payment, discrepancies emerged during compliance hearings, leading to doubts about the actual payment made.

During subsequent hearings, the applicant's counsel admitted to a genuine belief in having paid the entire service tax amount based on professional advice. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with pre-deposit requirements and dismissed the modification application. Emphasizing the importance of upholding its previous orders, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a further pre-deposit of the balance service tax amount within a specified timeframe.

Furthermore, the Tribunal issued a show-cause notice to the applicant regarding potential contempt of court for allegedly providing misleading information. In response, the applicant tendered an unconditional apology, leading the Tribunal to withdraw the show-cause notice. The proceedings highlighted the significance of accurate representations before the court and the consequences of any misleading statements.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of pre-deposit compliance, accuracy in payment claims, and the court's authority to enforce truthful submissions. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.