Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2874

Whether penalty can be imposed when tax along with interest paid before issuance of SCN?

Case:- FORTUNE NETWORK PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S.T., VADODARA-II
 
Citation:- 2015 (39) S.T.R. 689 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
 
Brief facts:- This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. PJ/619/EDR-11/2012-13, dated 26-3-2013. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are imposable upon the appellants when the entire amount of Service Tax leviable have been paid by the appellant along with interest, before the issue of show cause notice. First Appellate Authority held the penalties imposed upon the appellant appropriate because tax amounts were recovered from the customers.
 
Appellant’s contention:- Shri Dhaval Shah, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the period of dispute is from 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007. That as a result of visit made by the officers on 13-3-2007 to the premises of the appellant the proceedings started. It was his case that there was delay in filing the first return for the period 1-4-2006 to 13-3-2007. Subsequently, the returns were filed by the appellant in time. It was his case that Service Tax liability was correctly calculated by the appellant and the amount available in the Cenvat credit account was promptly debited at the end of the month for which Service Tax was payable. That due to financial difficulty there was delay in payment of first return of the Service Tax and the same was paid on 14-3-2007, 23-3-2007 and 29-3-2007 which was before the issue of show cause notice dated 9-2-2011.
 
Respondent’s contention:- Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue argued that the appellant only started filing returns after the case was booked by the officers of the Revenue. That once the amounts were collected and not paid within the date will amount to suppression with intention to evade payment of Service Tax. The Authorised Representative, therefore, defended the orders passed by the lower authorities.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-It is observed from the case records that the appellant was registered with the Revenue and was paying the Service Tax. It is the case of appellant that during the relevant period there was financial difficulties therefore, the appellant could not pay the entire Service Tax within the prescribed time. It is also observed that except for the first periodical return the appellant was showing the correct Service Tax liability in the returns and that amount available in the Cenvat credit account was debited by the appellant after the end of each month. Once the correct duty amount is shown in the returns there cannot be any intention to evade payment of Service Tax which is also paid by the appellant before the issue of show cause notice along with interest. In view of the above, there was reasonable cause for the appellant for not paying the entire Service Tax which was truly reflected in the periodical returns filed by the appellant. Under the Finance Act, 1994, there are provisions for late payment of Service Tax along with interest which was done by the appellant before the issue of show cause notice. Accordingly, the case was also covered by Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 and there was no need to issue show cause notice in this case. Appellant is also eligible for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
In view of the above observations, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed
 
Comment:-The analogy of the case is that penalty is not imposable when the Service Tax payable has been shown in returns but service tax amount was not paid in time due to financial crunch. As the Service tax has been paid in full with interest before issue of show cause notice, there is no intention to evade Service Tax. Accordingly, the benefit of section 73(3) of the Finance Act was extended and penalty was dropped.  

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