TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs.76,51,054/- under Information Technology Software Services and Rs.36,858/- under Commercial Coaching and Training Services, along with applicable interest. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty under Section 78 to the extent of Rs.7,63,623/- and penalty under Section 77, while refraining from imposing penalty equivalent to 100% of the service tax confirmed. The case arises from investigations conducted by DGCEI, which revealed that the respondent was engaged in multiple activities including software development, installation, maintenance, IT training, and biometric data services for UIDAI projects, and had collected service tax from clients but failed to discharge the full tax liability. 1.2 It was further found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o impose a lesser penalty once ingredients such as suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade stand established. In support, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Commissioner vs. Joe Transport to contend that where suppression is established, penalty under Section 78 is mandatory and therefore the impugned order requires modification by imposing penalty equal to the entire service tax confirmed. 5. Since none appeared on behalf of the respondent and the Order-in-Original is partly in favour of the respondent, the submissions and contentions recorded in the impugned Order-in-Original are deemed to represent the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs.1,80,316/- and penalty of Rs.1,31,186/- in terms of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Thus, on the date of issuance of notice, no tax liability remained outstanding. Such conduct does not support an allegation of deliberate tax evasion. 7.3 The adjudicating authority has rightly recorded that payment under an incorrect taxable category had not caused any revenue loss to the Government since excess tax already paid under Management, Maintenance and Repair Services substantially neutralized the short payment under Information Technology Software Services. Once tax had already reached the exchequer, the allegation of deliberate suppression loses considerable force. 7.4 We further note that the adjudicating authority has correctly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present appeal on the assumption that once extended period under Section 73 is invoked, penalty equal to the entire demand under Section 78 must automatically follow. We are unable to accept such a proposition. The reliance placed on Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Commissioner v. Joe Transport, 2015 (39) S.T.R. 366 (Mad.) is misplaced since the factual foundation in the present case is entirely different. When the appellant has settled the short-paid tax along with applicable interest and also penalty at prescribed percentage before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, the issue should have been treated as settled in terms of provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. We theref....