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/2013-14/1871

Simultaneous imposition of penalty under section 76 & 78 prior to 10.05.2008.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. & CUS. AURANGABAD VERSUS VIJAY BHAMRAO DOLAS

Citation:-2013(31) S.T.R. 490 (Tri.-Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-This is a departmen­tal appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. AGS(43)30 /2010, dated 17-3-2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Aurangabad.
The respondent in this case, Shri Vijay Bhimrao Dolas, is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of construction of residential com­plexes. On the basis of intelligence that the respondent was providing taxable services and not discharging Service tax liability thereon, an inquiry was initiated and the records maintained by the party were called for. On going through the records received, it was noticed that the respondent assessee has provided taxa­ble services for a value of Rs. 9,80,250/- during the year 2007-08 and similarly for the period 2008-09 (upto February-09) the assessee received a consideration of Rs. 17,61,000/- for taxable services of construction of residential complexes. After taking into account, the small scale exemption available to the assessee, the duty liability was determined for an amount of Rs. 1,15,206/- and the assessee was informed accordingly and the assessee discharged the duty liability along with the interest vide Challan dated 9-3-2009 for the period 2007-08 and vide Challan dated 12-8-2009 for the period 2008-09. A show-cause notice dated 5-5-2009 was issued to the assessee proposing to recover Service tax for an amount of Rs. 1,15,206/- under the proviso to Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon of Section 75 of the said Finance Act and also proposing to im­pose penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. The case was adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner who vide an order dated 11-12-2009 confirmed the Service tax demand of Rs. 1,15,206/- and appropriated an amount of Rs. 1,15,123/- paid by the respondent assessee in March and August, 2009. The adjudicating authority confirmed the interest liability under Section 75 of the Finance Act and appropriated the interest of Rs. 2,578/- paid vide Challan dated 9-3-2009. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,15,206/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and further penalty for the same amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 and ordered for payment of late fee of Rs. 2,000/- for non filing of S.T.-3 returns. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the demand for Service tax and interest thereon. The appellate authority however reduced the penalty under Section 78 by Rs. 1,15,123/- which has also been paid by the assessee and he also set aside the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the penal­ties both under Sections 76 and 78 are not warranted and cannot be imposed af­ter 10-5-2008.

Appellant Contentions:-The department is in appeal against the said reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ground urged in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner's (Appeals) order is bad in law for the reason that he had set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act. The amend­ment to the Finance Act, 1994 with regard to imposition of penalty was made on 10-5-2008 as per which penalty cannot be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78.Therefore, for the period prior to 10-5-2008 penalty was imposable under both the Sections and, therefore, the appellate Commissioner should have upheld the imposition of penalty both under Sections 76 and 78 for the period prior to 10-5- 2008. It has been further urged that the assessee discharged the Service tax liability only after the case was detected by the department and, therefore the provi­sions of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 are not applicable in this case.

Reasoning of Judgment: We have considered the submissions made by the department. The as­sessee in this case is a small scale service provider and it is obvious from the records that he did not get registered and discharged Service tax liability as he was not aware of the provisions of law. As soon as the omission on his part was brought to his notice, he discharged the Service tax liability. For the year 2007-08 he discharged the duty liability in March, 2009 and for the period 2008-09 he dis­charged the liability in August, 2009 in respect of demand. He also discharged liability of interest in March 2009 itself. Therefore, this is not a case of non pay­ment of Service tax on account of fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstate­ment or contravention of provision of law with an intend to evade payment of duty. This is a simple case of non-payment of Service tax and non-observation of procedure of Service tax law out of ignorance. The assessee being a small scale service provider, it is quite possible that he did not discharge duty liability on account of ignorance. As soon as the proceedings were initiated and he was asked to produce records, he submitted all records and gave details of payment which he received for the services he provided. He also discharged Service tax liability as soon as the same was quantified and intimated to him. Therefore, it was a fit case for waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the said Finance Act which the adjudicating authority failed to do by taking into consideration the facts of the case which the appellate authority has done. He reduced the amount of penalty to the extent to Service tax paid by the respondent assessee. At least the appellate authority has exercised the discretion to some extent even though he could have waived the entire penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which provides for complete waiver of penalty when there was a reasonable cause for failure on assessee's part in non payment of Service Tax. Thus, Tribunal finds that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal as devoid of merits.
Decision:-  Appeal dismissed.

Comment:-The significance of this case is that as the assessee was not having knowledge about the provisions of the Finance Act, he did not get registration and not paid service tax, there was no fraud, collusion, suppression, willful misstate­ment or contravention of provision of law with an intend to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, waiver of penalty under section 78 by invoking the provisions of section 80 was justifiable and proper. Moreover, the penal­ties both under Sections 76 and 78 are not warranted and cannot be imposed af­ter 10-5-2008. 

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