TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) of Section 73 read with Section 73 (2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) I order for charging Interest at the appropriate rate under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the amount of Service Tax confirmed at (i) above. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.49031/- (Rupees Forty-Nine Thousand and Thirty-One only), upon the party under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance/ct, 1994. The party shall be eligible for reduced penalty specified in second and third proviso of Section 78 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of conditions specified therein. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), upon the party under the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, for non-payment of service tax. (v) I drop the demand of Service Tax under Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994. (vi) I also do not impose interest under Section 73B of the Finance Act, 1994. (vii) I also impose a penalty of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), upon the party for not obtaining service tax registration under Section 77 (1)(a) of the Act. (viii) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 10000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 along with interest payable under Section 75 of the said Act. (ii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for their such attempts to suppress/mis-states the material facts and contravention of provisions of chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 with intent to evade the payment of service tax. (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax in contravention of section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules. (iv) The service tax so collected from the customers and not deposited with the Govt. exchequer, if any, should not be demanded and recovered from them under section 73A of the finance Act, 1994; (v) The interest due thereon on the amount of service tax collected and not deposited by the party to the credit of Central Government, if any, should not be demanded and recovered from them under section 73B of the Finance Act, 1994, (vi) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 for not for not taken service tax registration in contrave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on them for the remaining portion of the consideration i.e. Rs. 326873/-. However, I sce that no documentary evidence viz. copy of ITR or contract etc have been furnished by them. 5.6 I note that for the services falling under the category of GTAs, the appellant are not directly liable to pay service tax, instead the same had been shifted on the recipient of the services (e.g. consignor or consignee) under reverse charge mechanism provided the recipient was a specified person such as, a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or a company, society, cooperative society, or partnership firm or a registered dealer of excisable goods or a body corporate or a person located in taxable territory. If the recipient was not one of these specified entities, the GTA is liable to pay the service tax. But in the instant case the appellant could not establish their immunity from the tax liability. Nor could they produce any such documents which may categories them as SSI Exemption Unit. Thus, I hold that the liability to pay service tax of the taxable value of Rs. 326873/-falls on appellant. 5.7 I am of the opinion that the government from the very inception of the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25; प्रबन्धक द्वारा अपने रजिस्टर्ड पत्र दिनांक 29.09.2021 में की गयी है।" They also produced copy of letter dated 13.08.2024 of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation before the adjudicating authority, who has after taking note of the said letter observed that BPCL has vide this letter stated that in terms of entry No 2 of the Notification No 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, they have discharged the service tax on the taxable value of Rs 31,11,403/- under reverse charge mechanism in respect of the services provided by the appellant to them. Taking note of the above demand made has been reduced by the adjudicating authority on the value of services obtained after deducting this amount of Rs 31,11,403/- from taxable value determined on the basis of ITR (Rs. 34,38,276/-). Impugned order upholds the order demanding the service tax on the remaining value of taxable service. 4.4 I do not find any merits in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the findings recorded in the impugned order. When the appellant entertained such a bonafide belief then the demand made by invoking extended period of limitation has to fail in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uniworth Textile Ltd. [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] "19. Thus, Section 28 of the Act clearly contemplates two situations, viz. inadvertent non-payment and deliberate default. The former is canvassed in the main body of Section 28 of the Act and is met with a limitation period of six months, whereas the latter, finds abode in the proviso to the section and faces a limitation period of five years. For the operation of the proviso, the intention to deliberately default is a mandatory prerequisite. 20. This Court in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited and Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Maharashtra - (2006) 6 SCC 482 = 2006 (200) E.L.T. 370 (S.C.) observed :- "The proviso to Section 28(1) can be invoked where the payment of duty has escaped by reason of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. So far as "misstatement or suppression of facts" are concerned, they are qualified by the word "willful". The word "willful" precedi....