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 rules no service tax on penalty deductions, dismisses demands, sets aside penalties.</h1> <h3>M/s. Khaira and Associates Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax</h3> M/s. Khaira and Associates Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax - 2020 (34) G. S. T. L. 224 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Charging of service tax on penalty deducted by principal from bills.2. Charging of service tax on road construction work for a specific company.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the service tax charged on the penalty deducted by the principal from their bills. The appellant provided consulting engineer services to various clients and was audited by the Revenue, which raised objections regarding non-payment of service tax on the amount of TDS deducted by the principal. The appellant accepted the objection and deposited the service tax on TDS for the specified period. The Revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax on the penalty deducted by the principal, which was adjudicated, resulting in a confirmed amount towards tax on penalty deducted. The appellant contested this and appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the demand for service tax for the extended period of limitation was invalid and set it aside. They also ruled that if the penalty amount was deducted as per the contract and the appellant was not entitled to receive it, then no service tax was chargeable on that penalty amount. Therefore, the demand on this account was set aside.2. Regarding the charging of service tax on road construction work done for a specific company, the Tribunal found that the demand was confirmed due to insufficient evidence. This demand was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation. The Tribunal noted that there was no suppression of facts or deliberate default by the appellant, and thus, they set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act. The appeal was allowed in part, and the case was remanded for re-adjudication specifically concerning the road construction work for the mentioned company. The appellant was directed to submit necessary documents and explanations to the Adjudicating Authority within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 