Service tax suppression and penalty relief: staged payment did not justify waiver, and simultaneous penalties could not stand together.

Collection of service tax from clients followed by non-deposit with the department and incomplete disclosure in returns supported invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression and intent to evade. Subsequent staged payment, even before and after the show cause notice, did not by itself amount to reasonable cause for waiver of penalty under Section 80. The settled rule applied was that penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be sustained simultaneously; accordingly, the penalty under Section 76 was deleted while the penalty under Section 78 and the tax demand were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the basis of pre-SCN and post-SCN payments; (ii) Whether penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be imposed simultaneously; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invokable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the basis of pre-SCN and post-SCN payments

Analysis: The appellant had discharged the tax liability in stages, including a substantial payment before issuance of the show cause notice and the balance during and after adjudication. However, the appellant had collected service tax from recipients and yet failed to deposit it with the department. In such circumstances, mere subsequent payment did not constitute reasonable cause for non-payment so as to attract the benefit of Section 80.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be imposed simultaneously

Analysis: Section 76 and Section 78 operate in different fields, but the settled position applied in the decision was that simultaneous imposition of both penalties is not permissible. Accordingly, while the penalty under Section 78 was not disturbed, the penalty under Section 76 could not be sustained alongside it.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invokable

Analysis: The record showed collection of service tax from clients, non-payment to the department, and non-disclosure of material particulars in the service tax returns. These facts supported the finding of suppression and intention to evade payment, justifying invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The demand and the remaining penalties were sustained, but the penalty under Section 76 was deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable service liability is collected from recipients but not deposited, subsequent staged payment does not by itself establish reasonable cause for waiver of penalty, and simultaneous penalties under Sections 76 and 78 cannot be sustained together.

---