M/s. Sri Kalki Enterprises Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1464 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-10-2018
Appeal Nos. ST/300 & 301/2012 – Final Order Nos. 42768-42769/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S. Jayanth, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manpower supply service. During the course of audit of accounts, it was noticed that the appellant had short-paid service tax for the period July 2008 to September 2009 and also noticed that it had paid service tax belatedly for the period from April 2006 to June 2008. On being pointed out, the assessee paid the service tax along with interest on various dates. They had also not filed the ST-3 returns during the said periods. Show cause notices were issued propo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he appellant was under the impression that without paying the full liability of service tax amount, they cannot file the returns. The case is only of belated payments and there was no intention to evade payment of service tax. He argued that the appellant is a proprietary concern of which Smt. Revathi is the Proprietrix. Her husband was supporting her business and they had very low knowledge and understanding of the laws. There was much belated payment from the service receivers and the appellant could barely mange to meet the payment of salary and other expenses to the employees / staff due to backlog in receivables from their clients. He referred to the documents like pending payments by M/s. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 18,23,360/-, sundry debtors list as on 31.3.2009 which shows outstanding amount of Rs. 44,06,360/- and also sundry debtors list as on 31.3.2010 for an amount of Rs. 56,62,005/-. They had also to pay medical expenses and compensations to personnel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
/2012, the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The ld. consultant has furnished documents to argue that there was only delay in payment of service tax and there was no act of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. On perusal of the documents such as the list of sundry debtors etc., it is seen that there was huge amount pending as receivables. So also they had to meet expenses for salary, accident compensation of employees provided under manpower supply service. The department does not have a case that any of the transactions were unaccounted or that they had been indulging in a parallel accounting. It is commonly understood that the employees supplied through manpower supply service have to be given the salaries within due time. If the service receivers delay the payment, it would cause much hardship to the service provider as they have to make the statutory payments such EPF, ESI etc. to the Government. Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =