1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Service provider penalized for non-payment and non-filing of service tax returns</h1> The tribunal upheld penalties under Section 77 and 78 for non-payment of service tax and non-filing of service tax returns by a service provider. Despite ... Immunity from levy of penalty - appellant although providing taxable service and also received the service tax from the clients but not paying to the department - Held that:- no immunity can be granted to the appellant who is playing with the money of the department. It was only detected during the course of investigation that appellant is receiving service tax and not paying to the department. In these circumstances, penalty under Section 77 and 78 are confirmed by upholding the impugned order. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Penalty under Section 78 and 77 imposed for non-payment of service tax and non-filing of service tax returns.Analysis:The appellant, a service provider, collected service tax from clients but failed to remit it to the department and did not file service tax returns for the period 07.07.2004 to 31.03.2008. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the appellant was not paying the service tax to the department despite collecting it. The impugned order imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78. The appellant, represented by counsel, argued that they paid the service tax with interest, cooperated during the investigation, and should be granted immunity under Section 80 due to the proprietor's poor health during the relevant period.The tribunal considered the submissions and facts of the case. It acknowledged that the service tax was collected but not deposited, and service tax returns were not filed. The tribunal emphasized that no immunity could be granted to the appellant for mishandling the department's funds. The tribunal found that the appellant was detected to be receiving service tax but not remitting it to the department only during the investigation. Consequently, the penalties under Section 77 and 78 were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
