Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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