2016 (12) TMI 1235 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of tax with interest and penalty u/s 77 and 78 - default in payment of service tax - GTA service - Held that - the service tax liability and interest upheld - appellant having paid 25% of the service tax liability, as penalties under Section 78, the requirement of Section 78 stands discharged and no further amount requires to be paid u/s 78 as penalty. As regards the penalties u/s 77 - a lenient view needs to be taken, as appellant may be due to financial trouble in the partnership was unable to handle business and may not have obtained the registration or filed the returns; invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the penalties imposed u/s 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Service tax liability, penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78, financial difficulties, partnership business, leniency, Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. Service Tax Liability: The appellant availed the services of G.T.A. without discharging the service tax liability for the period January 2005 to December 2008. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78. The appellant paid the entire service tax liability and 25% of the tax liability as penalty under Section 78. The appellate authority partly allowed the appeal by setting aside penalties under Section 76 but upheld the penalties under Sections 77 and 78.

2. Financial Difficulties and Partnership Business: The appellant cited financial problems and difficulties in running the business as reasons for the default in paying the service tax liability. The counsel argued that due to these challenges, the penalties should be set aside. However, the tribunal considered these submissions along with the records and upheld the service tax liability and interest payment.

3. Penalties under Section 78: The tribunal upheld the 25% penalty paid by the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was noted that the penalty under this section was attracted, and since the appellant had already paid the required amount, no further penalty was deemed necessary under Section 78.

4. Penalties under Section 77 and Leniency: Considering the financial troubles faced by the appellant in the partnership business, the tribunal decided to take a lenient view. Invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, the tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 77. This decision was based on the understanding that the appellant, due to financial difficulties, may have been unable to handle business matters effectively, including obtaining registration or filing returns.

5. Operative Order: The tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the service tax liability and interest payment, confirming the 25% penalty under Section 78, and setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 77. The decision was made considering the financial challenges faced by the appellant in managing the partnership business.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.