2018 (2) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at owners which was subsequently handed over to the newly formed flat owners society, and whether they are liable to penalty. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a builder of residential flats and had taken suo moto registration with effect from 25/07/2011 under the head  construction of residential complex service  and  preferential location service , as well as internal/external development service. Whereas an audit was conducted for the period July, 2010 to March, 2013 by the Revenue officers and it was pointed out by the draft audit report issued sometime in August, 2013 that the appellant have neither submitted any ST-3 Return nor paid the service tax of Rs. 21,62,512/- for the period August, 2011 to March, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Act, they were required to take registration within 30 days of commencing business that is August, 2010, but registered only on 25th July, 2011 and thus appear to liable for penalty under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act. Accordingly show cause notice dated 18th November, 2014 was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 67,14,268/- with further proposal to appropriate the amount already deposited Rs. 64,62,727/- along with interest towards which an amount was already paid Rs. 14,01,960/- and further demand proposed under Section 70, under Section 77(2) and further penalty was proposed under Section 78 of the Act. 3. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demands confirmed and appropriation was allowed for Rs. 65,36,887/- tow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....late filing of returns Rs. 72,000/- towards proposed penalty for late registration and also Rs. 74,160/- towards service tax on the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs collected towards installation of Electric Meters. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that no show cause notice was required to be issued as the appellant had paid more tax than the tax proposed in the show cause notice as is apparent on the face of the record. Under such facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of second proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act which provides that where an assessee on being so pointed out or suo moto deposited the tax in dispute or short paid with interest under intimation to the Revenue that is end of the matter a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regularly. Further appellant have also paid interest on the late payments, suo moto, from time to time. Accordingly, the appellant prays for setting aside of the penalties imposed. 6. The Learned A.R. for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no case of suppression or contumacious conduct or any attempt on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax. Further it is admitted fact that there was disturbance in the normal carrying out of the business due to freezing of withdrawal in the bank account of the appellant company, which is a reasonable cause for delay in submission of their payment of taxes. And accordingly, I find that the same was reason for d....