9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. - in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 cannot be avoided. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore unsustainable. - Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of service tax of ₹ 10,96,375/- alongwith interest thereon; appropriation of the amounts remitted by the assessee; levy of late fee under Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; and levy of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. This notice clearly alleged that the assessee failed to furnish the relevant information with regard to rendition of taxable services, failed to obtain registration and to remit service tax and thus to have indulged in suppression of facts and non-remittance of tax with an intent to evade service tax and the applicable cess. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee inter-alia submitted that it was ignorant about the liability to service tax since neither the service recipients nor Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act and confirmed another finding of the primary authority regarding rejection of a claim presented by the assessee and in respect of which the assessee has preferred an appeal No. 112/ST/2012 before the appellate Commissioner. 7. Revenue asserts, in reiteration of allegations in the show cause notice and findings in the primary adjudication order, that the fact that the appellant had provided construction services, the taxability of which was in no doubt whatsoever on a mere reading of Section 65(25b) Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Act; the failure of the assessee to have obtained registration; to have filed returns of Service tax periodically and within time and to remit the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices of CICS or WCS during 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 but failed to obtain registration and remit any service tax, till 10.03.2010. On and from 10.03.2010 the assessee remitted service tax at its discretion and in trickles. Assessee remitted ₹ 15,753/- and ₹ 26,533/- on 10.03.2010; ₹ 6,59,445/- and ₹ 3,420/- on 23.03.2010; ₹ 1 lac on 30.03.2010 and ₹ 6,28,852/- on 23.04.2011. The remittances should be considered in the context of the fact that the assessee obtained registration for rendition of CICS on 26.06.2009 and for WCS on 30.03.2010. Clearly therefore and certainly from 26.03.2009, the appellant must be presumed to have knowledge of being the provider of taxable services liable to remit service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65(25b); the fact of the assessee having obtained registration for rendition of CICS on 26.06.2009 but failing to remit any tax till 10.03.2009 and that too in instalments and at the assessee's own convenience, without any justification pleaded for failure to remit the service tax and interest due immediately after 26.06.2009, leads to but one inference, namely that the assessee had consciously failed to obtain registration, file returns or remit the service tax due. 10. In the circumstances, in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 cannot be avoided. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore unsustainable. 11. The second proviso to Section 78 of the Act e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
