2011 (11) TMI 156 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision to Set Aside Penalties for Tax Non-Compliance

CST Ahmedabad Versus Smt. Ushaben Purohit

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside penalties imposed on the respondent under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by ... Waiver of penalty imposed on the respondent u/s 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 – invoking provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- Assessee had the intention to obey the law. In the application for registration also, assessee has given the date of commencement of business, co-operated during proceedings and have promptly paid the demand. These facts clearly show that omission to pay Service Tax was not intentional and reasonable cause required to be shown under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 has been shown. -Decided against the Revenue. Issues: Appeal against penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 set aside invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against penalties imposed on the respondent under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which were set aside by invoking Section 80 of the same Act. The Department argued that Section 80 was wrongly applied, stating that the respondent, an illiterate widow, was not well-versed with the law despite running a business and filing income tax returns. The Department contended that since the demand for Service Tax was confirmed invoking the extended period, the penalty should not have been set aside by the Commissioner.2. The respondent's Chartered Accountant argued that upon receiving a formal letter from the Department to pay Service Tax, the respondent promptly registered and indicated the business's start date in the application as evidence of good faith. It was highlighted that there was no intention to evade tax, as evidenced by the immediate payment of Service Tax upon notification. The respondent cooperated during audits, promptly paid any outstanding taxes, and filed income tax returns upon advice, demonstrating compliance with the law.3. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the respondent consistently intended to comply with the law, promptly acting on correct advice received. The respondent's disclosure of the business commencement date during registration and the proactive approach towards tax payments indicated a lack of intentional evasion. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had shown a reasonable cause as required under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, justifying the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order and rejected the Revenue's appeal, deeming it meritless.4. In the final judgment, the Tribunal, represented by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, pronounced the rejection of the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the lack of merits in challenging the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by invoking Section 80 of the same Act.