TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
penalty on department of post rs 26 lac
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty on department of post rs 26 lac<br> Query (Issue) Started By: - manish dawar Dated:- 22-12-2016 Last Reply Date:- 29-12-2016 Service Tax<br>Got 13 Replies<br>Service Tax<br>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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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 Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no mala fide intention involved. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: 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 BANGALORE MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. Versus C.C.E. & S.T., MANGALORE 2016 (42) S.T.R. 542 (Tri. - Kolkata) = 2015 (11) TMI 1624 - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Reply By MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN: The Reply: Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce 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. Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani: The Reply: But Sir, lack of knowledge is not an excuse for non-compliance. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it need to be proved that there is no malafide intention to evade payment of tax. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: 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. Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani: The Reply: Yes Sir, this is the most difficult part to explain. The department takes stand in most of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GPO. Reply By MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN: The Reply: Such a nature of case arised in Department of Telecom. We have won the case in favor of the Department. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The Reply: 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 ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se 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 Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral 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. Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani: The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reply: 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. Reply By manish dawar: The Reply: 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 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ECOVER 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 Reply By Ganeshan Kalyani: The Reply: How should a tax default be recovered from employees of the post office, if the default is of the post office. Reply By KASTURI SETHI: The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reply: 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.<br> Discussion Forum - Knowledge Sharing ....