2015 (11) TMI 1175 - AT - Service Tax

Contractor ordered to deposit Rs. 35,81,074 within 8 weeks for tax liability. Failure leads to appeal dismissal.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA directed the applicant, a contractor providing construction services, to deposit Rs. 35,81,074 within eight weeks ... Waiver of pre deposit - Penalty u/s 77 & 78 - “Commercial & industrial and construction services”, “Residential complex services” - Held that:- Applicant had admitted their liability of ₹ 40,81,704/- for rendering taxable services during the relevant period against the total demand of ₹ 74.47 Lakhs and disputed the balance amount claiming that it is relatable to construction of bridges, roads, Charitable institutions etc. Since the applicant had deposited an amount of ₹ 5.00 Lakhs, at this stage, keeping in view the interest of Revenue, we direct the applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 35,81,074 within a period of eight weeks - Partial stay granted. Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax, penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 74.47 Lakhs and an equal penalty imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant, a contractor providing construction services, had rendered services to various entities, including the West Bengal Housing Board and the Airport Authority of India Ltd. The applicant admitted liability for taxable services to the West Bengal State Housing Board but claimed non-payment due to lack of reimbursement. The Revenue did not dispute the liability amount admitted by the applicant. The Tribunal noted the admitted liability of Rs. 40,81,704 for taxable services and directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 35,81,074 within eight weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance. Failure to deposit would lead to dismissal of the appeal without further notice, ensuring the interest of the Revenue is protected.Overall, the judgment focused on balancing the interests of the applicant and the Revenue, with the Tribunal considering the admitted liability, financial hardship claimed by the applicant, and the need for deposit to proceed with the appeal process. The Tribunal's decision to waive the balance dues upon partial deposit aimed to facilitate the appeal while safeguarding the Revenue's interests.