2017 (12) TMI 824 - AT - Service Tax

Penalty u/s 77(1), 77(2) and 78 of the FA, 1994 - delay in payment of service tax - Held that - there is no infirmity in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has given reasons for invoking Section 80 for dropping the penalties against the assessee - there was a delay in payment of service tax on account of lack of awareness and the assessee being the State Government undertaking are not well acquainted with the provisions of the service tax - penalties rightly set aside by invoking section 80 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dropping of penalties under Sections 77(1), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking Section 80.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) dropping the penalties imposed on the assessee under Sections 77(1), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by resorting to Section 80. The facts revealed that the respondents had not discharged the service tax due on the renting of immovable property service as per Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act. The lower authority issued a show-cause notice demanding the service tax amount, interest, and penalties for various violations. The original authority confirmed the classification of the service, the service tax demand, interest, and penalties under various sections. The assessee appealed, citing lack of awareness about service tax provisions and delays due to official transfers within the Government organization. The Commissioner(Appeals) waived the penalties under Section 80, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue argued that the penalties should not have been dropped under Section 80 as the assessee concealed the receipt of service tax, failed to deposit it, and did not file returns. They contended that the assessee suppressed facts and thus should be liable for penalties under the relevant provisions. On the other hand, the respondent's representative explained that the service tax payment delays were due to lack of knowledge and frequent officer transfers within the municipal corporation. They asserted that the service tax was eventually paid, justifying the waiver of penalties.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found no issues with the Commissioner(Appeals) order invoking Section 80 to drop the penalties. The Tribunal noted the delay in payment was due to lack of awareness, especially since the assessee was a State Government undertaking unfamiliar with service tax provisions. The Commissioner(Appeals) decision was supported by a precedent involving Surat Municipal Corporation. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that being a statutory government body, there was no malicious intent to evade service tax, rather an omission. Section 80 of the Finance Act was cited, stating that penalties are not applicable if there was a reasonable cause for the failure. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner(Appeals) order to waive the penalties under Section 80.

The judgment was pronounced on 27/10/2017 by the Tribunal, upholding the decision to drop the penalties under Sections 77(1), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking Section 80, based on the reasonable cause for the failure to pay service tax promptly.