9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Service Tax but could not deposit with the Govt - Held that: - Though they have been registered with the Dept., they have failed to file necessary Returns nor informed the Dept., about their inability to deposit Service Tax though collected from customers. Therefore, their explanation that they are innocent and their approach is bonafide cannot be acceptable to a man of ordinary prudence - Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Shree Maheshwari Utility Agency (ST/10837/2015) controlled by a common proprietor Shri M.D. Dodhya provided Security Agency Service and Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services , respectively during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. The appellant had collected the Service Tax from the respective customers in providing such services, however, they failed to deposit the same with the Govt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0837/2015) to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Sec. 76 of the Finance Act 1994. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Ld. Chartered Accountant, Shri Bhatt for the Appellant submits that due to the accident of the proprietor-Appellant in the year 2007-08, the Service Tax, even though collected from the clients could not be deposited with the exchequer in time. However, as soon as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax Dept., failed to file the returns in time nor informed the Dept., about collection Service Tax from their clients. Therefore, the penalty has rightly imposed and confirmed against the appellants. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that while confirming the penalty and rejecting the argument on M/s Shiva Ashish Security and Utility Agency, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case is absolutely justified. However, confirmation of penalty under Sec. 76 as well under Sec. 78 in the case of M/s Shiva Ashish Security and Utility Agency Services, is bad in law, hence, penalty under Sec. 76 cannot be sustained, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Raval Trading Co (supra) . Consequently, appeal No.ST/10837/2015 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
