2018 (10) TMI 1072 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Construction of residential complex service – non-payment of service tax – penalty – Held that:- Undisputedly, the appellant had though rendered taxable services under the category of construction of residential complex service during the relevant period 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2012, but failed to discharge appropriate service tax in time and also failed to furnish periodical ST-3 returns indicating the amount of taxable value received against the said service. Thus the fact of rendition of taxable service as well as value of service had been suppressed from the knowledge of the department – penalty u/s 78 upheld – however, benefit of reduced penalty is to be provided.
–
Liability of service tax of ₹ 1,33,477/ Held that:- Even though the appellant have been claiming that the value against which the said amount of service tax demanded represents loans received from various persons, wrong entry and thereafter correction in their books of acc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2 amounting to ₹ 8,27,234/- and short payment of service tax of ₹ 1,33,477/- for the relevant period. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant has submitted that due to confusion in the levy of service tax on construction of residential complex services during the period 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2012, initially they have not paid the service tax nor filed any returns with the Department. He submits that on their own, before issuance of the show cause notice, the entire amount of service tax of ₹ 8,27,234/- along with interest of ₹ 1,54,093/- had been disbursed by them. It is his contention that therefore imposition of penalty equal to the amount of service tax under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is unwarranted
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s). 5. I find that undisputedly, the appellant had though rendered taxable services under the category of construction of residential complex service during the relevant period 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2012, but failed to discharge appropriate service tax in time and also failed to furnish periodical ST-3 returns indicating the amount of taxable value received against the said service. Thus the fact of rendition of taxable service as well as value of service had been suppressed from the knowledge of the department. Accordingly, imposition of penalty under Section 78 for non-payment of service tax of ₹ 8,27,234/- has been rightly confirmed by the authorities below. However, I find that both the authorities below have not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As far as liability of service tax of ₹ 1,33,477/- is concerned, I find that even though the appellant have been claim
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =