TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court Upholds Penalties for Tax Evasion in Mandap Services</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on an appellant providing mandap keeper services. ... Mandap keeper - suppressed the charges and also the number of functions held in their resorts- no reasonable cause for failure to pay tax – penalty is imposable but not under both the sections 76 & 78 - proper penalty would be an amount equal to the tax evaded as per sec. 78 – Penalty modified Issues:Challenging setting-aside of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994Analysis:The appellant, engaged in providing mandap keeper services, was accused of providing services in a surreptitious manner, issuing bills for lesser amounts, and holding unaccounted functions. The adjudicating authority confirmed the evasion of service tax amounting to Rs.1,66,222 and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on the reversal of a decision by the High Court, arguing that the basis of the impugned order no longer existed.In light of the provisions of Section 11AC, similar to Section 78, the Supreme Court has held that the levy of penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory, and liability for payment of duty depends on the findings on merits. The Revenue established that the respondent suppressed the value of taxable services and did not record all functions, leading to the deposit of Rs.2,65,200 as service tax. The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds under Section 80 to waive penalties, as suppression and fraudulent behavior warranted penalty imposition.The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a decision by a Larger Bench, later reversed by the High Court, emphasizing that mere deposit before a show cause notice does not automatically waive penalties. The respondent's suppression of charges and functions without reasonable cause justified penalties under Section 78, which deals with aggravated default. The Tribunal modified the penalties, reducing the penalty under Section 78 to Rs.1,66,220, equal to the evaded service tax amount. No separate penalty under Section 76 was warranted, and the rest of the original order was confirmed, allowing the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
