TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Smt. Priyatama Mohanty, Partner/Proprietor W/o Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty Qrs.No. Type II/345, New A.G. Colony, Bhubaneswar To M/s. Universal Travels C/o Sri Santosh Kumar Sarangi, partner At-Panchapal P.O.- Barang Dist.- Cuttack Show Cause Notice alleged that M/s Universal Travels bearing Service Tax Registration No.102/ST-BBSR/RAC-50/2000 dt. 23.11.2000 & Pan Based No. AJJPM0788PST001 have provided 'Rent-A-Cab Scheme Operator Service' and 'Rail Travel Agent Service' during the period from 2004-2005 to 2008- 2009. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 43,00,661/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order modified the demand to Rs. 15,57,375/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act,1994. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench to Annexure-1 to the Appeal Memo i.e. Form ST-1 which shows that M/s. Universal Travels as a partnership firm, having 3 partners, namely:- (i) Smt. Priyatama Mohanty, W/o Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty quarters No. Type II/345, New A.G.Colony, Bhubaneswar, (ii) Shri Santosh Kumar Sarangi, S/o Shri Banamali Sarangi At-Panchapal, P.O.- Bar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged in the Show Cause Notice. The Ld. Advocate strongly argued that one of the erstwhile partner, Shri Santosh Kumar Sarangi had also applied for registration with the service tax authorities as proprietor of the firm M/s. Universal Travels and was given registration no. AUSPS3804qst001 vide Form ST-2 Dated 08-09-2008, photocopy of the form ST-2 is filed at Page 127 of appeal paper book. The Ld. Counsel submits that this was also filed before the first appellate authority. 3. The ld. DR reiterates the discussion and findings of the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. I find that Smt. Priyatama Mohanty, as Proprietor applied for a registration in the name and style of Universal Travel which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Sarangi, in as much as, demand had been issued to the Partnership firm, i.e. M/s Universal Travels. 9. I find that in para 5.8 of the order-in-original, the Ld. Addl. Commissioner, has observed "The notice proposes imposition of penalty on M/s Universal Travels as a partnership firm and a separate penalty on Smt. Priyatama Mohanty as its partner/proprietor". With this starting point taking into account the submission of other partner, he has concluded "However Smt. Priyatama Mohanty is not the partner of M/s Universal Travels but she is sole Proprietor. The proprietorship concern and the proprietor are not separate legal entity. Since separate penalty has been considered against the proprietorship concern, no penalty is warranted agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arelessness of DVC CTPS. Had they paid the Service Tax amount timely to the Noticee, this situation could be avoided. (iii) Preventive wing and arrear recovery wing of the Commissionerate of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi are directed to take corrective and punitive measures on the DVC CTPS, in case of non compliance of this Order & in order to ensure the non recurrence of such incidents in future." for the following facts and reasons : (i) The aforesaid observations and directions are vital in nature and it affects the rights of present petitioner and these observations could not have been made by the Respondent No. 4 without giving any notice to the present petitioner. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner, Cen....