2017 (9) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... R. Reddy, Asst. Comm. (AR), for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants are paying service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service (GTA) on reverse charge basis. During the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012, the audit of the appellant records, it was observed that the appellant though paying service tax but on the commission of transporter service tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty imposed under Section 78. He submits that discrepancy regarding non-payment of service tax on transport commission was revealed only from the audit of the appellant's records. The amount of transport commission was appearing in the balance sheet. The appellant admittedly paid the entire service tax on 04/12/2012 and interest was also paid on 28/04/2013. In this fact, there is no malaf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... avoided to pay service tax on commission, which is nothing but part and parce of the gross value of the GTA. Accordingly, there is a clear suppression of fact as the appellant did not declare the transaction of the payment of transport commission to the department either in the ST-3 return or otherwise the demand was also confirmed invoking the extended period. Therefore, the penalty under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of transport commission has neither been declared in the ST-3 return nor otherwise informed to the departmental authorities by the appellant. It could be detected not only in the audit by the audit officers. In such a case, the departmental officers had no occasion to know about the appellant's action of receipt of transport commission and non-payment of service tax thereon. Therefore, the ....