9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for delay in submission of their payment of taxes - penalty u/s 78 set aside. Penalty u/s 77(2) for taking service tax registration late - Held that: - the appellant had suo motu taken registration with the Department. Further it is not the case of Revenue that the appellants had taxable receipts during the period prior to the date of taking registration - no case of penalty under Section 77(2) is made out and accordingly the said penalty is also set aside. Penalty/late fee of ₹ 1,03,000/- u/s 70 of the FA read with Rule 7C of STR 1994, towards late filing of the returns - Held that: - there is reasonable cause for furnishing of returns late due to disturbance in the business, being freezing of withdrawal from the Bank account, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the draft audit report issued sometime in August, 2013 that the appellant have neither submitted any ST-3 Return nor paid the service tax of ₹ 21,62,512/- for the period August, 2011 to March, 2012 and ₹ 43,00,215/- for the period April, 2012 to March, 2013. On being so pointed out, the appellant deposited the service tax of ₹ 21,62,512/- and ₹ 43,00,215/- for the period August, 2011 to March, 2012 and April 2012 to March, 2013, respectively, vide challan's as confirmed in O.I.O. The ST-3 Returns for the period April, 2010 to March, 2013 were also subsequently filed. Whereas the appellant had paid the service tax for the period July, 2010 to March, 2013 after the due date no interest on the said delay had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther demand proposed under Section 70, under Section 77(2) and further penalty was proposed under Section 78 of the Act. 3. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demands confirmed and appropriation was allowed for ₹ 65,36,887/- towards tax already paid, further interest was also demanded under Section 75 with proposal to appropriate from the amount already deposited. Further late fee of ₹ 1,03,000/- was also demanded under Section 70 of Finance Act read with Rule 7C for late submission of ST-3 Returns and the said amount was also appropriated from the amount already deposited, further penalty of ₹ 33,57,134/- was imposed under Section 78 and further penalty ₹ 72,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of second proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act which provides that where an assessee on being so pointed out or suo moto deposited the tax in dispute or short paid with interest under intimation to the Revenue that is end of the matter and no show cause notice need to be issued. The appellant have further argued that no service tax is payable on the amount of security deposit which they have collected from the flat owners and as per the agreement with the flat owners, have handed over the said amount of ₹ 14,35,125/- to the society formed of the flat owners, which is not disputed. As such amount was collected having character of pure agent and or as a trustee on behalf o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is admitted fact that there was disturbance in the normal carrying out of the business due to freezing of withdrawal in the bank account of the appellant company, which is a reasonable cause for delay in submission of their payment of taxes. And accordingly, I find that the same was reason for delay in submission of the ST-3 Returns as well as other compliances. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty levied under Section 78. So far the penalties of ₹ 72,000/- under Section 77(2) for taking service tax registration late, I find that the appellant had suo motu taken registration with the Department. Further it is not the case of Revenue that the appellants had taxable receipts during the period prior to the date of taking registration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
