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>Appeal successful in tax penalty case due to prompt compliance and lack of intent.</h1> <h3>People Consultants Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Cochin</h3> People Consultants Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Cochin - 2017 (4) G. S. T. L. 313 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Appeal against rejection of appellant's appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)- Imposition of penalty under Section 78- Allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty- Appellant's contention of bonafide belief and immediate payment of tax upon department's notificationAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was engaged in providing manpower recruitment agency services without registering as a service tax provider, leading to the initiation of action against them for non-payment of service tax between May 2008 and December 2008. The original authority confirmed the demand under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest under Section 75, and imposed penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78. The department contended that the appellant's activity fell under the category of manpower recruitment agency service, discovered through departmental verification, and invoked the extended period of demand under proviso to Section 73(1) due to alleged suppression of taxable value by the appellant with the intent to evade service tax.The appellant argued that the penalty under Section 78 was not sustainable as the conditions for its imposition did not exist in the case. They highlighted that the service tax, along with interest, was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, questioning the validity of invoking the extended period for alleging suppression of facts. The appellant emphasized their lack of awareness regarding the taxable nature of their services, as the service was made taxable from a date after they commenced operations. Upon notification by the department, the appellant promptly paid the service tax and interest, demonstrating their good faith and lack of mens rea to evade tax. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their arguments.Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. It noted that the appellant had started providing services before the service became taxable, and upon being informed by the department, promptly paid the due tax and interest. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of suppression of facts in the show cause notice, and considering the appellant's immediate compliance upon notification, deemed the penalty imposed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, dropping the penalty and providing any consequential relief deemed necessary. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 15-3-2017.
TaxTMI 