Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   RTI applicant in Madhya Pradesh asked to pay GST for information *   India’s GST collection drops to Rs93,960cr in August *   Karnataka Taxmen arrest two Bengaluru businessmen in GST related fraud *  Govt may soon impose IGST on ex-factory sales; decision in September. *  Niti Aayog Suggests Slashing Import Duty, GST On Gold *  Kerala Floods: Relief Goods Exempted From Customs Duty, IGST *  No GST On Petrol, Diesel In Near Future As Centre, States Not In Favour. *  Kerala plans to raise Rs 7.5 bn through hiked liquor duty & 10% cess on GST. *  Orissa HC directs authorities not to take action against importers on GST. *  Firms can't be selective in passing on rate cut benefits under GST regime *  Technical glitches continue to haunt the Goods and Services Tax Network *  GST Annual Return: Everything you need to know about the format, eligibility & rules around GSTR 9  *  Post GST, J&K’s own tax collection drops by Rs 1,300 crore since July 2017 *  GST Council may replace 12% and 18% slabs with 14-15% one: Sushil Modi *  Domino’s lands in trouble for not passing on GST cuts *   Higher oil prices, GST may boost states revenue by Rs 37,400 crore in FY19  *   These taxpayers no more at mercy of GST intermediaries *  Budget 2018: No fiscal derailment, but a lot rides on GST; expect caution from RBI *  GST: E-way bill implementation deferred due to glitches *  Homebuyers must avoid traps on the name of NO GST Impact *   Govt will formulate a comprehensive gold policy to develop gold as an asset class *   Government to evolve to asign a unique id to every individual enterprise. *   1.48 lakh crore for rail budget. *   7148 Crore to be sanctioned to textile sector. *   3700 corore for SME industry *  16000 crore for free electricity connection *   Government ignored warnings over GST rollout: sources *  GSTR 3B questionaire introduced- To be filled before filing return *  Advisory mail  to all the taxpayers received from GSTN *   Advisory group on GST submits report, suggests changes
Subject News *  Consumer durables firms, GST body continue to spar over profiteering *   225 million e-way bills generated across India since GST rollout *   September last month to fix GST filing errors *   Due date of TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 is extended *   Extension of Due date for GSTR-3B only for newly migrated taxpayers *   Extension of Due date for GSTR-1 *   Taxpayer with turnover over Rs 2 cr need GST audit certificate, will be arduous job for auditors *   Whether the appellants are eligible for refund of the duty claimed to have been paid in excess on the basis of DMT of the goods? Whether the said claim of refund is sustainable without challenging the assessment of the shipping bills. (Source:PJ/CASE LAW/2018-2019/3479) *   GST Flash Updates on various circulars and notifications dated 04/09/2018 *   GST Update on Circular No. 61/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 *   GST Update on disharmony in CGST and SGST *    Update on restriction of refund of IGST paid on exports under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules *   1,800 businesses migrate to GST regime *   ‘Missing’ service tax credit in GST update worries companies  *   Government notifies new annual return form for GST *  Whether Automatic Taps, Urinals and WC Flushing Systems would be classified under heading 9032 or Heading 8481 of Central Excise tariff. *  : Whether processing of secondary raw materials(steel scrap of different and variable composition) into blended steel scrap is liable for payment of central excise duty under the provision of the central excise Act,1944?Can  such “blended metal scrap” can be classified under tariff item 72044900 of the central excise tariff Act, 1985? *  Whether the transportation of goods by means of hired vehicles such that no consignment note is issued, would fall under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service? *  Whether the applicant is eligible to avail the benefit of exemption from payment of SAD provided under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. *  Whether the polyester sewing thread manufactured by the appellant is excisable or not. *  INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIAMOND GRADING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. *  Whether grading and inscription of diamonds by the appellant (IIDGR India Private Limited) would amount to manufacture under Central Excise legislation. *  What is the classification when frozen meat is sold in packaged form and rate of tax to be applicable? *  Is the unutilized cenvat credit available before surrender of registration transferable to the new unit? *  Whether Kindle device is covered under Tariff Item 8543 70 99 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not? *  GST Council considering Kerala government's proposal of 'calamity tax' *  Orissa HC directs authorities not to take action against importers on GST *  Whether the assessee on filing of second appeal before Tribunal is required to make an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute? *  Whether Automatic Taps, Urinals and WC Flushing Systems would be classified under heading 9032 or Heading 8481 of Central Excise tariff? *  Niti Aayog Suggests Slashing Import Duty, GST On Gold  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3451

In what circumstances penalty under section 80 be waived?

 
Case -MIDAS EVENTS VersusCOMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI

Citation- 2016 (41) S.T.R. 233 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The appellant, who were engaged in the business of ‘Event Management’ started their operations in 1999 and took Service Tax Registration in the year February 2003 for service tax category “Event Management”, which came into effect on August 2002. Investigations by the department revealed that the appellant did not pay their service tax liability for the above mentioned period. They did not submit any documents such as contracts and invoices relating to the service provided to their clients. They only submitted a bank statement of M/s. UTI Bank which indicated that they had received gross value of Rs. 10, 51, 77,288/- during the said period. It was also noticed that apart from not paying service tax since 2002, they never filed any ST3 returns. Show cause notice dated 7-4-2008 was issued to them which culminated in the impugned order of Commissioner of Service tax.
 
Appellant’s Contention- . Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that service tax was demanded on total gross value received by them which should be taken as cum-duty value because they neither collected nor received any amount over and above the amount shown in the Bank Statement. He relied on the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II v. Roopa Ram Suthar [2014 (35)S.T.R.583 (Tri.-Del.]. He also prayed for waiver of penalty relying on the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka judgment in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v. Motor World [2012 (27)S.T.R.225 (Kar.)].

Respondent’s Contention-  On the other hand ld. A.R., appearing on behalf of Revenue expressed the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant right from the beginning in not receiving show cause notice, not replying to the show cause notice and not appearing for personal hearing on various grounds such as ill health. He emphasized that appellant did not produce any documents throughout the investigation and upto the time of adjudication. The duty has been demanded correctly on the total amount received by the appellant. On the aspect of penalty and time bar, he relied on the Tribunal decision in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. C.S.T., Mumbai-I [2015 (37)S.T.R.785 (Tri. - Mumbai) [which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2015 (37)S.T.R.J176 (S.C.)].

Reasoning of Judgment – The aspect of leviability of service tax was not disputed by the ld. Counsel only disputes that gross value received by them should be considered as cum-duty value. They found that the appellant at no stage made available any documents such as invoices and contracts with their clients which would indicate that value received by them is cum-duty value. They noticed that one of the clients was a well-known company i.e. Hindustan Unilever. They found no reason why any documents could not have been obtained from their client to show that the value received by them was actually cum-duty value. Appellant got enough opportunity to produce documents from their client even if their own documents were washed away in floods. The case of Roopa Ram Suthar (supra) does not come to the aid of the client because in that case documents existed and invoices clearly disclosed that no service tax component was added and collected from customer. Therefore authority was not inclined to agree with counsel’s contention and the same was rejected.
On the issue of extended time period and penalty, they noted that appellant was very well aware of their responsibility and liability, having taken service tax registration in Feb 2003. But appellant still chose to avoid all Legal obligations cast on them after taken service tax registration and not complying with the requirement of filing ST3 returns on periodical basis for a long period of six years till the time of issuance of show cause notice. In the appeal memorandum, it was submitted that Commissioner ought to have granted another date of hearing after the last date of hearing 16-12-2008 whereas impugned order was passed on 4-3-2009. They did not accept this contention in the light of appellant’s callous attitude from the beginning since they took registration. Considering that appellant had service tax registration but did not receive the show cause notice, did not submit reply to the show cause notice, did not even appear for personal hearings on various dates can only lead to the conclusion that their intentions were not bona fide. Considering the CESTAT judgment in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, they did not find it a fit case for waiving penalty. It was certainly not a case for waiver of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act. Penalty may not be imposed in terms of Section 80 if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax and file returns. No “reasonable cause” whatsoever had been shown to us to deserve the benefit of Section 80.
 
Appeal rejected.

Comment –  the gist of the case was that for invoices to be considered cum duty value there must be a valid proof with assessee to prove that they did not receive the tax amount separately. Further the case also held that for waiver of penalty assessee is ought to produce a reasonable cause and bonafide belief of not paying tax and filling returns. In absence of them penalty shall be levied

Prepared by- Neha bhansali

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com