TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant Shri Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the penalty of Rs. 1,89,911/- have been rightly imposed under Section 78 of the Act. Further penalty was imposed Rs. 5000/- under Section 77. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant are providing renting of immovable property service. The appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y basis from April 2013 to October 2013 on accrual basis which had not been paid by the time of audit, amounting to Rs. 3,66,879/- including cess. Another amount of Rs. 12,941/- was pointed out including cess, relating to the period 2009-10 to 2012-13, as amount of tax short paid. The appellant accepted the audit objection and deposited Rs. 12,941+ interest Rs. 5,282/- vide challan dated 16.12.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribed penalty, but as the appellant did not respond neither intimated the payment particulars of the penalty amount @ 1% per month, it appeared that the facility of closure of dispute under Section 73 (4A) of the Finance Act is not available to them. 5. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed an appropriated alongwith interest. Further penalty under Section 78 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....difference in calculation for a period of four years. Further, regarding the amount of 3,66,879/-, the appellant was under bona fide belief, as per agreement with the tenant, they were raising annual invoice for the rent on 31st March and accordingly, paying the service tax. Though, the law required to pay service tax on monthly basis. Admittedly, the appellant had paid the service tax on rent til....