Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (2) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer applied under the Sabka Vishwas Legal Dispute Resolution Scheme but only the application filed by the company was cleared by the Department and Discharge Certificate was issued and accordingly the appeal of the company is dismissed as withdrawn but the applications filed by the individuals were rejected. Further, on merit also, there are no material which was considered by both the authorities below while imposing the penalties on these two officers under Section 78A of the Finance Act. The only ground on which both the authorities have imposed penalties is that these officers were negligent whereas there are no material to substantiate that allegation against these officers. Thes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 Lakh on the Managing Director Sh. V.S. Bobba and ₹ 1 Lakh on Sh. Ratnakar B., Chief Financial Officer. These three appeals were filed before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, M/s Menzies Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. availed the Sabka Vishwas Legal Dispute Resolution Scheme and the Competent Committee issued the Discharge Certificate in Form-IV and the appeal against the company was dismissed as withdrawn. The Managing Director as well as the Chief Financial Officer also applied under the Sabka Vishwas Legal Dispute Resolution Scheme vide their application which is on record but the same was rejected by the Department. Now, we are proceeding to decide the appeals of the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e bills raised and has not paid the service on the remaining 60% of the delivery order fees collected. The appellant-1 had deducted 60% of the service tax collected from the customers in respect of the delivery order fees relating to DHL and had paid the service tax only on 40% of the said fees, though they had charged and collected service tax on 100% of the value of the said bills raised. On enquiry by the audit, the appellant-1 intimated that as per the agreement they retain 40% of the delivery order fees plus service tax and remit 60% of the delivery order fees including 60% of service tax to DHL by issue of credit notes and since their income was only 40% of the delivery fees collected, they had paid service tax on 40% of the value. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t informed the department, the facts regarding the said activities. The act of suppression, had rendered the appellant-1 liable for invoking the extended period of five years under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act and they are liable for penal action under section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2. In view of the above, the appellant-1 appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 68 and rendered themselves liable of penal action under Section 78(1), and to pay interest under Section 75 of the Act. It was alleged that Sh. Ratnakar B, Chief Financial Officer of the company and Sh. V.S. Bobba, Managing Director both were well aware of the fact of service tax charged and collected in full but not paid to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idual penalty on the officer is automatically goes as per the various conditions of the scheme but the Department has wrongly rejected the application filed by the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer. He further submitted that otherwise on merit also, the penalty is not liable to be imposed on the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer because the Department has not brought anything on record to show that how the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer were negligent in performance of duty. 5. On the other hand, learned AR has submitted that the applications of the Managing Director and the Chief Financial Officer are rightly rejected and penalties have been rightly imposed on them as they were neglig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates