9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants are paying service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service (GTA) on reverse charge basis. During the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012, the audit of the appellant records, it was observed that the appellant though paying service tax but on the commission of transporter service tax was not paid by the appellant under GTA. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that discrepancy regarding non-payment of service tax on transport commission was revealed only from the audit of the appellant's records. The amount of transport commission was appearing in the balance sheet. The appellant admittedly paid the entire service tax on 04/12/2012 and interest was also paid on 28/04/2013. In this fact, there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is nothing but part and parce of the gross value of the GTA. Accordingly, there is a clear suppression of fact as the appellant did not declare the transaction of the payment of transport commission to the department either in the ST-3 return or otherwise the demand was also confirmed invoking the extended period. Therefore, the penalty under Section 78 is inevitable and the same cannot be waiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in the ST-3 return nor otherwise informed to the departmental authorities by the appellant. It could be detected not only in the audit by the audit officers. In such a case, the departmental officers had no occasion to know about the appellant's action of receipt of transport commission and non-payment of service tax thereon. Therefore, the suppression of fact is clearly established. As r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
