9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax Rules, 1994 in case of certain categories of receivers of GTA service, the service tax was to be paid by the service recipients. There is no dispute that the respondent in terms of said notification would liable to pay service tax on GTA service received by them with effect from 1-1-2005. It appears that the respondent paid certain amount of service tax only for the month of January and February, 2005 and thereafter challenged this levy by filing a writ petition before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court granted stay on collection of service tax in March, 2005 but Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on 12-8-2005. The respondent however, still did not start the payment of service tax and paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides. 2.1 Shri Sansar Chand, ld. DR pleaded that even though there may be a reason for non-payment when the matter was before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, once the matter was decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 12-8-2005, there was no reason for the respondent for continued non-payment; that the respondent at least should have started payment of service tax by due date from September, 2005 onwards; that in respect of the period from September, 2005 onwards, the respondent have failed to show that there was any reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax by due date and that in view of this, Commissioner (Appeals)'s waiving the penalty under section 76 by invoking the provisions of section 80 is not correct. 2.2 Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period applicable for the payment of principal amount - i.e., duty, would also apply for recovery of the interest on duty. He pleaded that the ratio of this judgment would be equally applicable for initiating the penal proceedings. He also pleaded that the calculation of penalty is also wrong and same has been imposed even for the period of stay. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The levy was effective from 1-1-2005 and in March 2005, on a writ petition having been filed by the respondent before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the levy and collection was stayed. However, the respondent's writ petition was decided against them on 12-8-2005. Even if margin of about one and half month - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the facts of the case. As regards Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. (supra) cited by ld. Counsel, the same is with regard to the applicability of limitation period for recovery of interest on duty. Penalty is something totally different and hence, this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is also not applicable to the issue involved in this case. 5. Since as discussed above, from October 2005 onwards, there was no reason for non-payment of service tax by due date, I hold that the respondent would be liable for penalty for period from 5-10-2005. However, looking to the circumstances of the case, I hold that penalty of Rs. 100 per day for the period from 6-10-2005 onwards till the date of its payment wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
