9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue is also not supported by any legal provisions. To invoke the provisions of Section 80 the appellant should show reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax in time but no such reasonable cause could be established in the present case. The taxability of the service rendered by the appellant is not subject matter of doubt or interpretation during the material time. In fact the Board’s clarification issued on 20/06/2003 itself makes it clear that there is no room for doubt for the period subsequent to the said clarification. - Decided against the appellant - Service Tax Appeal No. 60401 of 2013 (SM) - Final Order No. 51787/2016 - Dated:- 16-5-2016 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri N. K. Sharma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been that it is their client bank, M/s ICICI Bank, who should have taken steps for advising them on the service tax liability and also discharging the same being an indirect tax levy. The appellant contested the invocation of extended period for demanding service tax and for imposing penalty under Section 78 on similar grounds. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly pleaded that they were not aware of the service tax liability on their part and were under the bonafide belief that ICICI bank will take care of tax liability, if any. The learned Counsel submitted that their bonafide belief is sufficient cause for not imposing penalty on them. He submitted that there is no willful suppression with an intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that in the present case there is no submission of any mis-guidance by a consultant or the client. In fact the appellants were repeatedly asked on various dates [13/1/11, 09/2/11, 22/2/11, 5/4/11, 19/5/11, 15/6/11 and 28/7/11] to provide the details of receipt, income tax statement etc. to ascertain the service tax liability. Further, the appellant who is a Proprietary concern is registered with the Service Tax Department in Delhi in the name of the Proprietor for taxable service of Business auxiliary Service on 10/09/2009 itself. He also paid some service tax on a portion of receipt and filed ST-3 returns which were found to be incorrect and till the proceedings concluded the appellant did not provide the details of amount received f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
