Sachin Arun Karpe Versus CCGST, Kolhapur
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 878 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 13-2-2019
APPEAL NO: ST\/87915\/2018 – A\/85277\/2019
Service Tax
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
\nAppellant: Shri Saurabh P. Rairikar, Chartered Accountant
\nRespondent: Shri Onil Shivdikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR)
\nORDER
\nThis appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 07\/11\/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax, Pune.
\n2. The Appellants are engaged in providing taxable services falling under category “rent-a-cab service” under Section 65(195) of Finance Act, 1994. They have provided the said services to M\/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. during the period from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. As per the department, during the course of investigation they found that the Appellant failed to obtain Service Tax registration for providing such taxable service and also failed to pay service tax as well as filling of periodical ST-3 Return<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the Appellant and also paid the interest before the service of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is a specific case of the Appellant that he has not recovered Service Tax from his clients but despite that as soon as he comes to know about his service tax liability he pays the same from his own pocket. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n liability to pay service tax have been readily accepted and discharged his liability in full and the same is not disputed. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been referred to by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order clearly mentions that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is mandatory subject to the caveat that non-payment of service tax was a conscious and\/or deliberate act on the part of the assessee. For imposing penalty under Section 78 ibid the Revenue has to prove fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant. Merely because the Appellant failed to obtain the service tax registration and discharge the service tax liability within time, will not lead to the conclusion that there was intention to evade payment of service tax. It is not the case of the department that the Appellant has received service tax from his client and despite that he has not paid it. All the facts and figures in the boo<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n le grounds. The reason cited by the Appellant for non-payment of service tax at the relevant time is ignorance of the provisions of service tax liability. He has also claimed that due to misunderstanding, he has neither collected any service tax from his clients nor paid the service tax to the Government. This fact clearly establishes the fact that the Appellant had no malafide intention not to pay service tax. It is also on record that the full service tax demands and interest stands paid by the Appellant and he has not challenged the same before the appellate authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sachin Arun Karpe Versus CCGST, KolhapurService Tax2019 (2) TMI 878 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 13-2-2019APPEAL NO: ST\/87915\/2018 – A\/85277\/2019Service TaxShri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Appellant: Shri Saurabh P. Rairikar, Chartered Accountant Respondent: Shri Onil Shivdikar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER This appeal has been filed from the impugned order dated 07\/11\/2017 passed … Continue reading “Sachin Arun Karpe Versus CCGST, Kolhapur”<\/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-16794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16794","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=16794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16794\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. According to him, initially he was not aware about the Service Tax liability and hence, neither paid service tax nor filed ST-3 Returns. He obtained the Service Tax Registration under category of “rent-a-cab” and have paid service tax of Rs. 50,000 vide Challan dated 27\/10\/2014. He has also not availed any Cenvat credit and as per the provisions of Notification No. 13\/2012-ST dated 20\/06\/2012, his firm being a proprietary firm in nature, is not required to pay service tax from 01\/07\/2012 onwards as the person receiving the service is a body corporate. The Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterated the findings record in the impugned or<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case which shows that the Appellant although has not charged service tax from his clients but despite that paid the entire service tax amount prior to the receipt of the Show Cause Notice and also paid the entire interest before the issuance of the order-in-original, I find that this is a fit case to invoke the provision of Section 80 ibid. I also find that this<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n