penalty on department of post rs 26 lac

[manish dawar]

sir this case is due to clerical fault but it is converted in to penalty against postmaster ujjain and employees

service tax introduced in department of post apr-2006 they were new to file st-3

deposit of collacted tax to be credit by book transfer department of post to service tax department

due to lack of knowledge they failed to file in time and allow to various government departments excemption local bodies of service tax department refuse the book adjestment and issued notice in 2009 they appeal commissioner service tax indore and after that CESTAT IN 2014 but they reject the plea.

we are approaching to high court .

IS THEIR IS ANY OTHER ROUTE TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE BECAUSE DEPARTMENT OF POST IS GOING TO IMPOSE ALL ₹ 2692268/- AND PENALTY TO SEVERAL EMPLOYEES ,-.

PLEASE

[KASTURI SETHI]

There are judgements on this issue. I shall post soon. No doubt Govt. and Private Sectors both are equal in the eyes of law. But benefit to Govt. can be given on the ground that there is no mala fide intention involved.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Nobody can exonerate late fee but penalty on account of mala fide intention can be exonerated. or may be set aside.

2015 (40) S.T.R. 1093 (Tri. - Bang.) = 2015 (11) TMI 709 - CESTAT BANGALOREMANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T., MANGALORE

2016 (42) S.T.R. 542 (Tri. - Kolkata) = 2015 (11) TMI 1624 - CESTAT KOLKATA SR. POST MASTER Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., BOLPUR

 

2012 (28) S.T.R. 486 (Tri. - Del.) = 2012 (8) TMI 499 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR Versus GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM

2010 (20) S.T.R. 762 (Kar.) = 2010 (9) TMI 326 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MYSORE Versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

[DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

Since your department is Central Government Department no cash payment is required. Only book adjustments is there. Similar situation arised in Department of Telecom also all over India. The case is in favor of Department of Telecom. You may refer to your nearby BSNL office in this regard.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

But Sir, lack of knowledge is not an excuse for non-compliance. However, it need to be proved that there is no malafide intention to evade payment of tax.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Kalyani Ji,

You are also right. If mala fide intention is proved, the court will not spare. Every case has different facts and circumstances.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Yes Sir, this is the most difficult part to explain. The department takes stand in most of the cases that since the department has identified the defect and if that was not done then the assessee would have continued to escape payment of tax. Thus there is intentional evasion of payment of tax.

[KASTURI SETHI]

We are not aware of the full facts of the case. So we cannot infer on the basis of a guess only. I have performed my moral duty by posting case laws in favour GPO.

[DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

Such a nature of case arised in Department of Telecom. We have won the case in favor of the Department.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Integrity of the Govt. department cannot be doubted. On the other hand defeat at three stages i.e. at the level of Original Adjudicating Authority, Commissioner (Appeals), CESTAT indicates that either the case has not been properly represented or strong evidence of evasion of Service Tax is present. It may be technical lapse i.e. not understanding and interpreting the law properly. It does not appear to me the case of late bookish adjustment. It appears to me that GPO could not collect ST from the consumer assuming that exemption was available. We cannot take plea that both departments pertain to Central Govt. because we cannot forget that revenue comes from pocket of common man/public. Penalty under Section 76 is imposed upon for such technical evasion. Once an official GPO does not collect Service Tax from consumer, it cannot be recovered as that consumer may not be traceable and loss of revenue is caused, knowingly or unknowingly, both are separate grounds.

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

Sri Kasturi Sir, i fully agree with your views. If the case is genuine then the querist should fightout the case through proper advocate.

This case is a good example stating that law is equal to all.

[manish dawar]

SIR

WE HAVE FILED CASE IN HIGH COURT BUT SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT SERVE NOTICE UNDER SEC 87 TO POSTMASTER AND HIGHER AUTHORITIES IS PRESSING HARDSHIP TO RECOVER AMOUNT FROM EMPLOYEES AND PAY TO SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT.

IN THIS CASE BOTH DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . ANY OTHER PROCESS TO FIND OUT SOLUTION BY INTERVENING BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

PLEASE MENTION

[Ganeshan Kalyani]

How should a tax default be recovered from employees of the post office, if the default is of the post office.

[KASTURI SETHI]

ST cannot be recovered from salary of an official of G.P.O. Penalty can be imposed upon a Govt. employee and can be recovered from his salary on account of negligence of duty.

AI Summary

Recovery of service tax from officials depends on proving absence of mala fide intent to avoid penalties and collection. Where a Central Government department failed to effect book transfers and file service tax returns, assessments and penalties were imposed; late fees remain non waivable but penalties based on mala fide intention may be set aside if absence of intentional evasion is demonstrated. Appeals and High Court review, reliance on precedents about book adjustments for government departments, and evidentiary proof on intent are the principal remedial routes, while statutory recovery mechanisms may permit imposition and salary recovery from officials for negligence.