2019 (12) TMI 418 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal dismissed for non-appearance & late fee upheld in service tax dispute.

Head Post Office Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Jodhpur -1

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal due to the appellant's repeated failure to appear, referencing a prior case with a similar issue. The appellant, ... Imposition of late fee under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules - delay in filing of returns - Banking and financial services - courier agency service - HELD THAT:- It is a statutory mandate for the returns to be filed at a specific time and that the late filing thereof invites the penalty of late fee, the relevant provision need to be looked into for the purpose is Section 68 (1) of Finance Act, 1994. It requires every person providing service to any person to pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66 ibid in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. - Since apparently and admittedly, the service tax returns for the period April 2014 to March, 2015 were not filed in accordance of the above discussed provision, there is definite violation of above quoted provisions and also of Section 70 of the Finance Act - Rule 7 (C) of Service Tax Rules, 1944 as rightly been invoked which makes an assessee liable to pay late fee due to said violation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Failure to appear for the appellant despite multiple opportunities.2. Non-payment of service tax for the period 2014-2015 by the appellant.3. Dispute over the imposition of late fee under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules.4. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules.Analysis:1. The judgment begins by noting the absence of the appellant despite several opportunities granted. The Departmental Representative highlights a previous similar case where the appellant did not appear, indicating the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal, considering this submission, decides to dispose of the appeal based on the outcome of the previous final order.2. The appellant, engaged in banking, financial services, and courier agency services, faced a demand for unpaid service tax amounting to Rs. 1,23,519 for the period 2014-2015. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand through an order, which was partially modified in the appeal. While the demand for service tax and interest was dropped, a late fee under Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules amounting to Rs. 1,26,300 was upheld. The appellant challenged this imposition through the impugned appeal.3. The Tribunal delves into the legal provisions governing service tax payment, specifically citing Section 68(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rule 6(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. It emphasizes the requirement for timely payment and deposit of service tax, highlighting the electronic payment mandate effective from October 1, 2014. The failure to file service tax returns for the specified period is deemed a violation of the provisions, justifying the imposition of a late fee under Rule 7C.4. Considering the admitted non-filing of service tax returns and the violation of relevant provisions, the Tribunal upholds the invocation of Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, holding the appellant liable for the late fee. The judgment concludes by dismissing the appeal, affirming the validity of the impugned order. The decision is based on a thorough analysis of the legal framework and the appellant's non-compliance with the prescribed regulations.This detailed analysis of the judgment illustrates the Tribunal's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal and upholding the imposition of the late fee on the appellant for non-compliance with service tax payment regulations.