M/s. Sri Ranojirao Endowment Trust Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 949 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 12-12-2018
Appeal No. ST/42044/2018 – Final Order No. 43080/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri K. Sankaranarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
The appellant is aggrieved by the interest and penalties which is upheld in the impugned order.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant, which is a religious trust, had leased out their property for rent. Department was of the view that they are liable to pay service tax on the rent received and show cause notice was issued p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e appellant contested the matter on the belief that they have a good case on merits. After receiving the Order-in-Original, they have discharged the entire service tax and he pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. It is argued by the ld. Counsel that the delay in paying the service tax was only due to the bonafide belief that being an entity of the Government and being a religious trust, they are exempted from paying service tax. It is also submitted by him that there is no evidence to establish any fraud or willful suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 78 is without any factual or legal basis. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Punjai Pu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant had not collected service tax from the tenants and that the matter was remanded by Commissioner (Appeals) to requantify the service tax liability giving cum-tax benefit. Taking note of this fact, it is established that the appellants were under the bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax and were not collecting the service tax from the tenants. Further, there is no evidence to establish that they had suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the penalty imposed under section 78 cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The original authority has imposed penalty of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =