9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violations were committed in course of the same transaction or arose out of the same act - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 997/- but failed to file a return or remit the service tax, as a rent-a-cab scheme operator. 4. Consequently, proceedings were initiated by issuance of a show cause notice dated 21.3.2005 which culminated in the adjudication order dated 22.9.2010. 5. The adjudicating authority followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in Secretary Federation of Bus Operators , Tamil Nadu vs. UOI reported in 2001 (134) ELT 618 (Mad) and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.C.E., Chandigarh vs. Kuldeep Singh Gill -2010 (18) STR 708 (P & H) and confirmed the demand of service tax, interest and penalties as specified in the adjudication order. 5. The ld. Counsel for the appellant/petitioner relies on judgments of this Tribunal in Shree Gayatri Touris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that since the assessee was under the bona fide belief that it had not provided rent-cab-service, there was no willful suppression nor conscious contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of tax and no penalty should be imposed. This contention was also considered in the judgment in Anil Kumar Agnihotri. For the reasons recorded therein, we reject this contention as well. 9. Another contention urged on behalf of the assessee is that there is no justification for imposing penalties both under Sections 76 and 78. We notice that Delhi High Court in Bajaj Travels Ltd. v. C.S.T. -2012 (26) STR 417 (Del.) has considered this issue and concluded that imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78, prior to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
