TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds penalties for non-payment of service tax, sets aside one penalty for prompt payment</h1> <h3>ASAL MARKETING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD</h3> ASAL MARKETING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - 2014 (35) S.T.R. 854 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Short payment of service tax under different categories.2. Application of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T.3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. Treatment of amount received as cum-tax receipt.5. Dispute regarding imposition of penalties.Analysis:1. Short Payment of Service Tax:The appellants were found to have short-paid service tax amounts totaling to &8377; 86,440/- for the years 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2007-08. Additionally, they failed to pay service tax on income received under the category of 'Outdoor Caterer' service, resulting in a further short payment of &8377; 28,397/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax liabilities and penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Application of Abatement:The abatement granted under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. was found to be conditional, and as the appellants did not fulfill the conditions, the abatement could not be granted to them. This non-compliance further contributed to the short payment of service tax and subsequent penalties.3. Imposition of Penalties:The appellants contested the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78, arguing that they had paid the entire service tax amount with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the penalties citing suppression of facts and mis-declaration. However, the Tribunal analyzed the circumstances and found that while penalty under Section 78 was justified due to non-payment of service tax on 'Outdoor Caterer' service, the penalty under Section 76 was set aside considering the appellant's prompt payment and reasonable cause for the omission.4. Treatment of Amount Received:The Commissioner (A) considered the treatment of the amount received as cum-tax receipt, which led to a reduction in the total demand to &8377; 49,110/-. The appellants appealed against this order, contesting the demand, interest, and penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.5. Dispute Regarding Penalties:The Tribunal deliberated on the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78, emphasizing the significance of timely payment, suppression of facts, and the appellant's compliance with service tax regulations. Ultimately, the penalty under Section 76 was set aside based on the appellant's reasonable cause for the underpayment, while the penalty under Section 78 was upheld due to non-payment and mis-declaration issues.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the various issues related to short payment of service tax, application of abatement, imposition of penalties, treatment of received amounts, and the dispute over penalties. The decision provided a nuanced analysis of the facts and legal provisions, ultimately resulting in the setting aside of one penalty while upholding another based on the specific circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 