9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spection of the premises in the year 2007 and that is how the assessee was called upon to pay the tax which was not paid till then. After that, an order-in-original was about to be passed on a show cause notice, but that was avoided by payment of the tax and discharge of the liability. Whether such an act absolves an assessee from payment of penalty and specifically with the aid of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was on the statute book till its amendment by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 14 May 2015, is the question which has not been examined by the Tribunal at all. There is rather no reference to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Tribunal's order is cryptic and the reasons are wholly unsatisfactory, needs to be qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract, service tax was imposed on commercial construction with effect from 10 September 2004. The Revenue claimed that had they not inspected the premises of the assessee in 2007, they would not have discovered the evasion of service tax. Once the service tax was leviable during the course of implementation of the contract, then, the obligation to pay the same was absolute. There is no question of then contending that there was a bona fide impression of the assessee about the levy not being attracted or any doubt, whether the contract attracted the service tax liability or not. That is how the show cause notice was issued; but an amount of ₹ 20 lakh was paid before the orderinoriginal came to be passed and after the issuance of show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax, then, penalty was mandatorily leviable. There was no reason for the Tribunal, therefore, to have granted any relief and on a specious ground that the assessee entertained a bona fide belief that it does not fall under the service tax law. The liability was discharged as soon as non payment was brought to the notice of the assessee. 6. Mr.Jetly would submit that this sort of reasoning is impermissible in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 7. However, Mr.Patil, learned advocate for the assessee in opposing this appeal would submit that first of all the order passed by the Tribunal raises no substantial question of law as the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon to pay the tax which was not paid till then. After that, an orderinoriginal was about to be passed on a show cause notice, but that was avoided by payment of the tax and discharge of the liability. Whether such an act absolves an assessee from payment of penalty and specifically with the aid of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was on the statute book till its amendment by Finance Act, 2015 (Act No.XX of 2015) with effect from 14 May 2015, is the question which has not been examined by the Tribunal at all. There is rather no reference to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 9. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the appeal raises a substantial question of law. It is admitted on the following substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
