9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances the case of the appellant is covered under Section 73 (3). As per the plain reading of section 73(3), it is clear that if the assessee on his own ascertainment pay the service tax along with interest without protest. In such case no show cause notice should be issued. In the present case the appellant have discharged the service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. It is further noted that the appellant have declared the entire transaction in their books of accounts. Therefore no suppression of fact can be attributed for delayed payment of service tax. Therefore, the appellant’s case is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the Act, and the appellant was not required to be served with the show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and as such half yearly returns in Form ST-3 were not filed on due dates as specified under Section 70 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules. However, the service tax liability was worked out by the appellant and service tax was paid and the ST-3 Returns were also filed. The appellant also paid the interest for the delayed payment of service tax to the tune of ₹ 5,63,418/- after the payment of service tax along with interest. The revenue issued a show cause notice proposing the demand of service tax which was earlier not paid but paid before the issuance of show cause notice and also proposed to appropriate amount of service tax as well as interest already paid by them and penalties under Section 76, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled for the waiver of penalty invoking Section 80 also. In support she placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Moving Pixels Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2014 (34) S.T.R. 286 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) C.C.E. S.T., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2012 (26) S.T.R. 3 (Kar.) (iii) Manipal County Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2010 (17) S.T.R. 474 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) Commissioner V. Manipal County 2014 (36) S.T.R. J188 (Kar.) (v) Vista Infotech Vs. Commissioner of Service tax, Bangalore 2010 (17) S.T.R. 343 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. On the other hand, Shri A.K. Goswami, Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant had no intention to evade the service tax which along with interest was discharged before the issuance of show cause notice without any protest. In such circumstances the case of the appellant is covered under Section 73 (3) which is reproduced below: Section 73 (3) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person chargeable with the service tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the amount of such service tax, chargeable or erroneously refunded, on the basis of his own ascertainment thereof, or on the basis of tax ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of service tax. As per the plain reading of the above section 73(3) it is clear that if the assessee on his own ascertainment pay the service tax along with interest without protest. In such case no show cause notice should be issued. In the present case the appellant have discharged the service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. It is further noted that the appellant have declared the entire transaction in their books of accounts. Therefore no suppression of fact can be attributed for delayed payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
