2019 (7) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... alia, in providing 'Cleaning Service' to M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Daribad Mines, Rajsamand. 4. The Appellant is a small Cooperative Society constituted by the village based unemployed youth, being males and females belonging to the backward community. Appellant is executing work relating to sweeping of roads and buildings, cleaning of bathrooms & toilets, collection of waste, lifting of dead bodies of animals etc. Services provided by the Appellant are sanitation jobs, through collective manual labour of the members of the Appellant's Society on daily wage basis. It is imperative to point out that members of the Appellant's society are illiterate and village - based citizens. 5. During the course of audit, it was observed that the Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the society, according to their attendance for the work. It is further alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant provided information only on being asked by the Department and thus had intent to evade the payment of service tax mis-declaring the facts of providing the taxable service. 8. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and vide order-in-original dated 5.1.2017, the proposed demand was confirmed along with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 78, plus Rs. 10,000/- under Section 77 (1)(a) of the Act and also under Section 70 read with Rule 7 (c ) of the Service Tax Rules for non-filing of the returns Rs. 20,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant / assessee was before the Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edent for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, is made out. Ld. Counsel relies on the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd. - 2018(12) G.S.T.L. 368 (Delhi), wherein it is held, that in the case of limited company, who had not paid the duty on the services i.e. management, maintenance and repair services. The issue before the High Court was whether the Tribunal fell in error in holding that invocation of the extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act in respect of the aforementioned services is justified, in facts and circumstances of the case. The countering arguments of the ld. Counsel for the appellants revenue argued that the appellant /assessee paid service tax only after inqu....