Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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