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 confirms service tax liability for construction services, sets aside penalty due to tax confusion. Upholds demand for prior period with interest and imposes penalty for failure to deposit tax.</h1> <h3>M/s. Shrijan Builders Versus C.C.E & S.T. Raipur</h3> M/s. Shrijan Builders Versus C.C.E & S.T. Raipur - TMI Issues:Confirmation of service tax liability for the construction of residential complex services for a specific period and prior period, imposition of penalty, confusion regarding taxability of construction services, penalty for not depositing collected tax amount with the Revenue.Analysis:The judgment addresses the confirmation of service tax liability against the appellant for the construction of residential complex services for a particular period and a prior period. The appellant accepted the liability and deposited the amount along with interest. The appellant contended that confusion existed regarding the taxability of construction services, citing a circular and a High Court judgment. The tribunal considered this confusion and the immediate payment of tax by the appellant, concluding that penalty imposition was not justified for the period in question, setting aside the penalty.Regarding the tax amount collected by the appellant but not deposited with the Revenue for the prior period, the appellant argued that it was collected mistakenly, and no penalty should be levied. The tribunal noted that the tax was subsequently paid by the appellant along with interest. However, the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's plea of bonafide intent, as collecting and retaining the tax amount reflected an intention to enrich themselves. Consequently, the confirmation of the demand along with interest was upheld, and a penalty of &8377; 10,000 under section 77 of the Finance Act was imposed.In summary, the tribunal upheld the confirmation of the service tax liability for the specific period, considering the confusion in the field regarding taxability. The penalty for this period was set aside. For the tax amount collected but not deposited for the prior period, the confirmation of demand along with interest was upheld, and a penalty of &8377; 10,000 was imposed due to the appellant's intention to enrich themselves. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 