2015 (6) TMI 511 - HC - Service Tax

Appellant's Penalties Upheld for Service Tax Non-Payment; Lack of Genuine Justification

The High Court affirmed penalties imposed on an appellant for non-payment of service tax, emphasizing lack of genuine justification for exemption under ... Penalty u/s 76 & 77 - taxes has been paid even before the issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- The benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 should be extended. In the absence of such a substantial plea and there being no bonafide justification for exemption, penalty was imposed. We find no reason why the Authorities should depart from imposing such penalty as mandated by the provisions of the Act. - issue is covered by the decision[2015 (1) TMI 812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] in the case of Dhandayuthapani Canteen - Vs - Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein this Court, while considering the issue whether the penalty is imposable where the tax is paid before issuance of show cause notice held that penalty is imposable even in cases where tax is paid before issuance of show cause notice. - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77 with reasonable cause.2. Tribunal's order on penalty without considering relevant aspects.3. Levy of penalty despite payment of service tax before the show cause notice.Issue 1: Imposition of penalty under Sections 76 and 77 with reasonable causeThe appellant, engaged in video tape production, faced penalties for non-payment of service tax for specific periods. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77, citing continuous default in payment. The appellant argued that the belated payments were not intentional but due to customers' reluctance to reimburse service tax. Despite the appellant's plea, penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and later by the Tribunal. The High Court affirmed the penalties, emphasizing that the appellant did not provide a substantial plea for exemption under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that without a genuine justification for exemption, penalties were rightly imposed as per the law.Issue 2: Tribunal's order on penalty without considering relevant aspectsThe Tribunal remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine if the appellant qualified for an exemption under Notification No.7 of 2001. After re-adjudication, the Authority confirmed the demand, including interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, rejecting the appellant's claim for exemption. The High Court concurred with the lower authorities, stating that the financial hardship cited by the appellant for delayed payments did not absolve them from penalties. The Court emphasized that lack of financial capacity was not a valid ground to avoid penalties under the law.Issue 3: Levy of penalty despite payment of service tax before the show cause noticeRegarding the issue of payment of service tax before the issuance of the show cause notice, the High Court referred to a previous judgment. The Court cited a case where it was established that penalties could still be imposed even if the tax was paid before the notice. However, the Court granted the appellant the liberty to challenge this specific issue before the Commissioner. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, allowing the appellant to contest the matter further before the Commissioner. No costs were awarded in the judgment.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case, outlining the legal reasoning and decisions made by the authorities and the High Court.