Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2310

No penalty imposable under section 78 if there was bonafide belief for non payment of service tax.

Case:-  M/s HONAI CONSTRUCTIONS Vs CCE, KOLHAPUR
 
Citation:- 2014-TIOL-248-CESTAT-MUM
 
Brief facts:-The appellant M/s Honai Constructions is engaged in the business of civil construction and undertakes construction works both for private sector and also for the Government sector, being the work of irrigation canal. The appellant was constructing factory premises for M/s Shirol Magasawargiya Sahakar Soot Girni Ltd. by virtue of agreement entered into on 19.10.2001. At the time of entering into agreement of construction for the private party, Service Tax was not leviable on this activity. During the currency of the contract, Service Tax was imposed on commercial construction w.e.f. 10.09.2004. The Revenue had inspected the premises of the appellant in year 2007 and found that the appellant had not paid the Service Tax on the commercial construction activity although applicable since 10.09.2004, in the case of on going project from prior to 10.09.2004. It is the case of the appellant that they were under the bona fide, impression that the Service Tax was not leviable in terms of agreement entered into prior to 10.09.2004. The appellant on being pointing out of their tax liability by the Revenue, they started paying the tax on such activity and before issue of show-cause notice had paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards estimated liability. Further as per Order-in-Original, it is evident that the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.20 lakhs before passing of the order which is more than the tax found leviable Rs.17,56,977/-. The appellant states that there is no contumacious conduct on his part and the default occurred due to new levy of tax and lack of understanding on his part in respect of agreement prior to 10.09.2004. However, the penalty was imposed under Section 76, 77, 78 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant had carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded in para 7 of the impugned order that the appellant made the first payment of Service Tax in July, 2007, and further that the appellant should have been aware of their legal obligation towards Service Tax, and the tax could not have been collected if the Revenue has not inspected and pointed out the discrepancy to the appellant and there by confirmed the penalty under Section 78 & 77, setting aside the penalty under Section 76. The appellant being aggrieved of the imposition & sustenance of penalty under Section 78 has moved to this Tribunal in appeal.
 
Appellant’s contentions:-The appellant vehemently states that there has been no contumacious conduct on his part and the tax being new levy and the first offence on his part, a lenient view may be taken and imposition of penalty under Section 78 may be set aside. The appellant is not pressing for setting aside the penalty under Section 77.
 
Respondent’s contentions:- The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. He states that if the Revenue could not have inspected the premises of the appellant, then the evasion of tax would not have been traced out. In this view of the matter, levy of penalty is justified.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- The tribunal found that in view of the on going contract which was entered into prior to 10.09.2004 and the levy of tax being a new levy from 10.09.2004 and the appellant was under the bona fide belief that they do not fall under the Service Tax liability and keeping in mind the conduct of the appellant that he has discharged the Service Tax alongwith interest soon after being pointed out, it is a fit case for setting aside the penalty under Section 78 and accordingly it was done so. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part.
 
Decision:- Appeal partly allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that in view of the ongoing contract which was entered prior to 10.09.2004 and as Commercial or industrial construction service being a new levy implemented w.e.f. 10.09.2004, it is acceptable that the appellant was under bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under section 78 was set aside.
 
Prepared by: Monika Tak

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