2015 (12) TMI 1450 - HC - Service Tax

Delayed filings of return - Penalty u/s 76 - claim of relief for waiver of penalty u/s 80 - outdoor publicity services - Held that - t the appellant had not furnished any material to substantiate its claim that it was under severe financial hardship. - no materials were made available, by the appellant, to show that the erstwhile partnership firm had been converted into a sole proprietary concern. The service tax payable, by the appellant, for the period, between May 1997 and April 2000, had not been paid, for nearly about 3 years. Therefore, the appellant had been imposed with the penalty, under Section 76 of the Act. Since no acceptable cause or reason had been shown by the appellant for exercising its discretion, for waiving the penalty, under Section 80 of the Act, the penalty amount levied on the appellant had been confirmed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, dated 22.11.2010. Further, it is seen that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of maximum penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for belated payment of duty.

Analysis:
1. Partnership Firm's Tax Liability: The appellant, a partnership firm in outdoor advertising services, faced financial difficulties leading to non-payment of taxes from May 1997 to March 2000. After dissolution, it became a proprietary firm. The firm paid the tax liability for the said period belatedly but did not pay the interest, hoping for a waiver due to financial constraints.

2. Penalty Imposition: A show cause notice was issued in 2003 demanding interest on belated tax payment and proposing a penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant agreed to pay the interest but sought the penalty waiver under Section 80, which allows discretion for reasonable cause. Despite paying the tax and interest before adjudication, the Deputy Commissioner imposed the maximum penalty, upheld by the lower authorities.

3. Appellate Proceedings: The appellant's appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for penalty waiver under Section 80 was rejected without proper consideration. The Tribunal also confirmed the penalty, citing lack of sufficient grounds for waiver under Section 80, leading to the current appeal questioning the Tribunal's cryptic order.

4. Legal Arguments: The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order violated natural justice, failed to consider reasons for penalty waiver, and ignored the appellant's voluntary tax payment despite financial hardships. The respondent argued that the penalty was justified due to the delay in tax payment and lack of grounds for waiver under Section 80.

5. Judicial Precedents: Both parties cited legal precedents to support their arguments, emphasizing the need for reasonable cause to waive penalties for belated tax payments, lack of contumacious conduct, and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish valid reasons for non-payment within the stipulated time.

6. Court Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting the appellant's failure to provide evidence of severe financial hardship or conversion to a sole proprietary concern. With no valid cause shown for penalty waiver under Section 80, the Tribunal's penalty confirmation was deemed appropriate. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue, as the appellant's case lacked merit and did not align with the cited legal precedents.

This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the factual background, legal arguments presented, relevant legal provisions, and the court's decision based on the evidence and precedents cited during the proceedings.