TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate, it was found that during the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10, the appellant misdeclared the taxable value of the services in their ST-3 returns and as a consequence, there was short-payment of service tax to the extent of Rs. 34,86,916/-. Based upon the result of investigation, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show-cause notice dated 12.04.2011, which resulted in passing of an order by the original adjudicating authority. Vide his impugned order, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 34,86,966/- and as the appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 26,03,367/- and interest of Rs. 6,98,079/- he appropriated the same. In addition, penalty was also imposed under section 78 of the Act. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd justifiable reason for non-disclosure of the value of the services being provided by them. It is seen that such suppression of the value of the services was for a longer period of almost five years i.e., from 2005-06 to 2009-10. No explanation came forth from the appellant as to why the value of the services were not being disclosed correctly in their ST3 returns except a feeble effort on their part to show that as the said failure has occurred on account of non-receipt of payment from the customers. 6. Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 provides for imposition of penalty for suppression of the value of taxable services. It clearly lays down that where any service tax has not been levied or paid as has been short-levied or short-paid b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for a period of almost five years. The said non-payment was detected by the department on investigations made against them. It cannot be held that such non-payment of service tax or even non-disclosure of the value of the same in the return was on account of the non-receipt of compensation from the clients. The appellant has not placed any evidence on record to show that they had not received the value of the said services from their customers for such a long period. Even otherwise, I find that the payment of service tax is the legal obligation of the service provider, irrespective of the fact of receipt of value of the service from service recipient. All these factors lead to an inevitable conclusion that there was malafide on the part of ....