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 Appeal Dismissed for Commission Income in Goods Transport & Business Auxiliary Service</h1> <h3>Natural Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the demand of Service Tax on commission income received by the appellant, engaged in Goods Transport Agency and ... Time Limitation - Levy of Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - commission income received from M/s Gopal Enterprise and Galaxy Enterprise - existence of mens rea or not - HELD THAT:- The appellants are essentially arguing the matter on the issue of limitation. It is noticed that the appellant had not declared the said income in their monthly returns. Even if the appellant believe that the said income was exempted from service tax, they should have declared the same as exempted income. It is noticed that in their pleadings, they have also argued that they have not paid the service tax due to financial Hardship. These facts clearly indicate that the appellant were fully aware about the taxability of the service and deliberately neither paid the tax nor declared the said income in the monthly returns. The appellant are fully aware of their liability and choose not be paid service tax on account of financial Hardship or otherwise. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, the same is dismissed. Issues involved:The appeal against demand of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service.Summary:The appellant, engaged in providing services under Goods Transport Agency and Business Auxiliary Service, received commission income during audit. The demand of service tax on the commission income was confirmed, along with penalty. The appellant argued no intention to evade tax, citing all details reported in financial statements. They contended no mens rea, challenging the extended limitation period. Business Auxiliary Service was made taxable from 01.07.2003, exempted until 09.07.2004. The appellant failed to disclose the income in monthly returns, even if believed exempt. The Tribunal noted the appellant's awareness of tax liability but non-payment citing financial hardship. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant was deemed fully aware of their liability and chose not to pay the tax.Judge's Decision:The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.09.2023.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
