2017 (5) TMI 520 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 76 of FA, 1994 - delay in payment of service tax due to financial crisis - whether non payment of service tax in time is beyond the control of the appellant, therefore, there was a reasonable cause for non payment of service tax in time consequently, the benefit of section 80 of the Act can be given to the appellant or not? - Held that - it was not the intention the appellant not to pay service tax in time but due to the reasons that the head office has not release the fund, the appellant could not be pay service tax in time - the appellant has been able to show reasonable cause for non payment of service tax in time, therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of the Act is set aside by giving the benefit of Section 80 of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against waiver of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant filed ST-3 returns indicating service tax payable along with interest. A show cause notice was issued for non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time, leading to the demand of service tax, interest, and imposition of penalty under Section 76. The appellant, facing financial crises, explained that the delay was due to funds being released by the head office after payment by the service recipient. The appellant contended that there was no mala-fide intention, seeking the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for penalty waiver.

The appellant's counsel argued that the financial constraints caused the delay in paying service tax, emphasizing the absence of any malintent. Conversely, the respondent's representative opposed the waiver, citing Section 76 provisions mandating timely service tax payment to avoid penalties. The respondent also dismissed financial crises as a valid reason for penalty waiver under Section 80.

In the decision, the Tribunal considered whether the appellant's failure to pay service tax on time was beyond their control, justifying a reasonable cause for the delay and potential eligibility for Section 80 benefits. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's delay was due to the head office's fund release delay, not intentional non-compliance. Referring to a Karnataka High Court case, the Tribunal found a similar situation where Section 80 benefits were granted. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty under Section 76 by granting the benefit of Section 80.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the penalty under Section 76 being waived based on the reasonable cause shown by the appellant for the delay in service tax payment.