GOOD FORTUNE CAPITALS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & C. EX., SALEM
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 762 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 44 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 14-9-2018
Appeal No. ST/40554/2018-SM – Final Order No. 42431/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)
Shri S. Kannapan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR), for the Respondent.
ORDER
The appellants are engaged in providing 'Stock Broker Service'. A show cause notice was issued to them, inter alia, alleging that they failed to file ST-3 returns within due time, and proposing to demand the late fee, for not filing the returns, within the due time. After adjudication, the original authority, inter alia, confirmed the demand on this allegation against which the appellants filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of late fee regarding ST-3 returns filed for
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f the appellants.
3. The Learned Authorised Representative Shri B. Balamurugan supported the ported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to para 10 of the impugned order and submitted that the appellants ought to have approached the department and sorted out the problem. Since the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that they have taken up the problem with the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand for the periods from 7/2012 to 9/2012, 10/2012 to 3/2013 and 4/2013 to 9/2013. He submitted that the demand raised is legal and proper as the appellants have delayed in filing ST-3 returns.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The only issue arising for consideration is whether the demand raised in respect of late fee, for the delayed filing of returns, is correct and proper. The appellants submit that they could not file the returns electronically due to system failure and they had submitted the returns manually. In pages 56, 71 and 86 of the appeal paper
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en the problem to the department, I find that the appellants have produced screen shots of the returns filed to the department, which bears the signature of the officer concerned. The department having acknowledged the manually filed returns, ought to have taken steps to help or assist the appellants to solve the problem. Thus, the appellants cannot be found fault in the present case for the cause of delay in filing the returns.
6. After hearing on 12-6-2018, the Learned Authorised Representative sought time to get clarification from the department as to whether the appellants have filed the returns manually or not. The Learned Authorised Representative has submitted that he has intimated the matter to the department by letter dated 14-6-2018. The case was then posted to 3-8-2018 for getting report from the department. It was adjourned on the request of the department as they sought time. Still no reply has been received from the department. It is presumed that the department has no r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =