COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND C. EX. Versus SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.
Service Tax
2018 (5) TMI 1425 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 708 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-3-2018
TAX APPEAL NO. 123 of 2018
Service Tax
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ.
\nFor The Petitioner : Priyank P Lodha (7852)
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\nThe appeal is filed by the department challenging the judgment of CESTAT dated 13.6.2017 raising the following question for our consideration :
\n “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by quashing and setting aside the OIO dated 6\/5\/2011 holding that si<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the cases of nonpayment of tax on any ground whatsoever. The penalty that authority could impose under Section 78 is hundred per cent of the amount of the service tax evaded. On the other hand, the penalty under Section 76 which could be imposed is at the fixed amount per day for the entire duration of the failure to deposit the tax which, in any case, would not exceed fifty percent of the service tax payable. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e nature of this further proviso and the relevant position of the two statutory provisions both pertaining to penalty, we are convinced that the proviso was in the nature of clarificatory amendment and not creating a liability for the first time. Even without the aid to this further proviso to Section 78, one entire plausible view was that the situation envisaged under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, would exclude those cases covered under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. In other words, Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, would cover only the cases of nonpayment of service tax which are not related to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the said Chapter or the <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND C. EX. Versus SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.Service Tax2018 (5) TMI 1425 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 708 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 15-3-2018TAX APPEAL NO. 123 of 2018 Service TaxMR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Priyank P … Continue reading “COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND C. EX. Versus SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 10. The tenor, background and the purpose for which the penalty could be imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is entirely different than in case of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the language of Section 76 did not specifically exclude the situation; otherwise covered under Section 78 namely nonpayment o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n