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 Overturns Penalties for Timely Payment</h1> <h3>M/s. Ayesha Mazumdar Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South</h3> M/s. Ayesha Mazumdar Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South - TMI Issues involved:Waiver of penalty under section 78 and section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the waiver of penalties imposed under section 78 and section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant, a company, was issued a show cause notice for alleged non-payment of Service Tax under 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' and 'security deposit/renting of immovable property' for the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of certain amounts as Service Tax, interest, and penalties. The appellant had paid the demanded amounts before the notice was issued. The appellant's advocate argued that the non-payment was due to clerical error and not an intentional evasion of tax. It was contended that there was no fraud or willful attempt to evade tax, and the appellant had paid the entire amount along with interest. The authorized representative for the Revenue reiterated the orders.The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the entire demand before the show cause notice was issued and that the issue was no longer res integra based on previous Tribunal decisions. Citing the case law of R.K. REFRESHMENT & ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. and SREE KANYACOMBINES, the Tribunal highlighted that penalties under section 78 and 77(1)(d) could be waived if the appellant proved a reasonable cause for the failure to pay tax. The Tribunal found that the penalties imposed on the appellant were not sustainable as there was no allegation of fraud or willful misstatement, and the failure to pay tax was due to the contentious nature of the issue. Therefore, the penalties under section 78 and 77(1)(d) were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefit.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed under section 78 and section 77(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision was based on the appellant's timely payment of the demanded amounts, absence of fraudulent intent, and previous Tribunal decisions supporting the waiver of penalties in similar cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
