In the present case also, we note that the appellant did not file statutory returns indicating the provision of service and receipt of taxable income and accordingly we are in agreement with the lower Authority regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant. The Court holds that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Section 73 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 — Penalty – The appellant, a service tax assessee, had not paid the entire service tax liability for a certain period but only discharged a part thereof and also did not pay the amounts due in time. The amounts were not available with it at the relevant time. The service tax dues were ultimately paid on 09.01.2009, as mentioned in the SCN dated 12.03.2009, asking him as to why the penalty ought not to be imposed, for late payment of service tax. The ground of suppression of material facts too was alleged. The appellant urged the question of law as to whether "imposition of penalty for non-payment of service tax was unwarranted". The appellant contested the SCN and adjudication order was issued imposing with a 100% penalty under section 73(4) read with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT also affirmed the order. The appellant submitted that he had not indulged in suppression or mis-representation of facts and was rather constrained by the circumstances, inasmuch as it could not deposit the amounts. The appellant submitted that certain amounts of service tax paid in normal course was also taken into account while imposing penalty. The court observed that when there is a non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time, the authorities are right in proceeding against the appellant to confirm and recover the non-paid tax liability and to impose penalty.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
In the present case also, we note that the appellant did not file statutory returns indicating the provision of service and receipt of taxable income and accordingly we are in agreement with the lower Authority regarding imposition of penalty on the appellant. The Court holds that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Section 73 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 — Penalty – The appellant, a service tax assessee, had not paid the entire service tax liability for a certain period but only discharged a part thereof and also did not pay the amounts due in time. The amounts were not available with it at the relevant time. The service tax dues were ultimately paid on 09.01.2009, as mentioned in the SCN dated 12.03.2009, asking him as to why the penalty ought not to be imposed, for late payment of service tax. The ground of suppression of material facts too was alleged. The appellant urged the question of law as to whether "imposition of penalty for non-payment of service tax was unwarranted". The appellant contested the SCN and adjudication order was issued imposing with a 100% penalty under section 73(4) read with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The CESTAT also affirmed the order. The appellant submitted that he had not indulged in suppression or mis-representation of facts and was rather constrained by the circumstances, inasmuch as it could not deposit the amounts. The appellant submitted that certain amounts of service tax paid in normal course was also taken into account while imposing penalty. The court observed that when there is a non-payment of service tax within the stipulated time, the authorities are right in proceeding against the appellant to confirm and recover the non-paid tax liability and to impose penalty.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no merit in the appeal and no substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal.