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>Service tax demand upheld for 2011-2015 period with penalties under Finance Act</h1> <h3>Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non-veg. Restaurant Versus Commissioner and Additional Director General, Jaipur</h3> Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non-veg. Restaurant Versus Commissioner and Additional Director General, Jaipur - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of service tax on services provided by the appellant under the category of 'Restaurant-cum-Bar Service'.2. Validity of extended period of limitation for the demand of service tax.3. Applicability of penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Summary:1. Applicability of Service Tax on 'Restaurant-cum-Bar Service':The primary issue was whether the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of 'Restaurant-cum-Bar Service' as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzv) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal examined the definition clause, which specifies that taxable service includes any service provided by a restaurant with air-conditioning facilities at any time during the financial year and a license to serve alcoholic beverages. The appellant argued that the air-conditioning facility was removed by the end of 2010 and replaced with air coolers. However, the Tribunal found that there was no substantive proof to support this claim. The initial application for the liquor license in 2010 stated that the restaurant was air-conditioned, and no communication was made to the State Excise Department about removing the air-conditioning facility. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim was a cover-up to avoid service tax liability.2. Validity of Extended Period of Limitation:The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation should not apply as there was no suppression or willful misstatement of facts with the intent to evade duty. The Tribunal, however, observed that the appellant tried to defraud two revenue departments by violating the conditions of the state excise license and not paying service tax. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant's actions showed an intention to evade tax liability, thus justifying the extended period of limitation.3. Applicability of Penalties:The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to the appellant's suppression of facts and misrepresentation. The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct indicated a clear intention to evade duty, and it was not a case of bona fide belief or ignorance of service tax liability.Conclusion:The Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, upholding the demand for service tax for the period from 01.05.2011 to 31.03.2015, along with penalties under Sections 77(1)(a), 77(2), and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
