9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent to evade payment of service tax. In any event, non-filing of ST-3 return would not amount to suppression of facts, with intent to defraud Government revenue, unless it is corroborated with other evidences of malafide intention - the imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified. The imposition of penalties under Section 70 and 77 of the Act are warranted for delayed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice dated 09.10.2013 was issued, proposing demand of service tax along with interest and for imposition of penalty and also to appropriate the amount deposited by the appellant. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Service Tax has confirmed the demand of service tax of ₹ 75,33,032/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 70, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted that filing of returns with incomplete details, tantamount to withholding of information, which the assessee is statutorily required to furnish. It is further submitted that the department had detected the fact of non-payment of tax during the course of enquiry. Thus, imposition of penalty is justified. 6. We find that prior to January 2013, the appellant had paid an amount of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act is not justified. However, imposition of penalties under Section 70 and 77 of the Act are warranted for delayed filing of ST-3 returns and for non-submission of documents within the stipulated time frame. 7. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
