2019 (4) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... returns were not responded at the relevant point of time. Further, it is also noticed that in some cases, the appellant had collected the service tax from the recipient of service but did not deposit the same with the Government exchequer as its statutory liability. Thus, the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 73 of the Act ibid is not available to the appellant inasmuch as the appellant has not brought any iota of evidence to prove its bona-fides regarding non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time frame. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajiv Luthia, C.A. and Jinal Maru, C.A. for appellant Shri Sudhir B Mane, Authorized Representative for respondent ORDER Per: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the delay in payment of service tax liability was owing to financial / liquidity crisis and the appellant had no intention to defraud the government revenue. Thus, he submitted that since the entire service tax liability along with interest was deposited by the appellant before issuance of the show cause notice, the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Act ibid should be available for non-initiation of any show cause proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Act ibid. The Learned Consultant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Virtual Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Service Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gation to discharge the service tax liability and for filing of periodic ST-3 returns. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant did not comply with the statutory provisions. As a result, the department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant. I find that the letter dated 21.05.2012, 10.10.2013, 04.10.20.12 addressed by the department to the appellant regarding payment of service tax and for filing of ST-3 returns were not responded at the relevant point of time. Further, it is also noticed that in some cases, the appellant had collected the service tax from the recipient of service but did not deposit the same with the Government exchequer as its statutory liability. Thus, the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 73 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X