Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1678 - HC - Service TaxSimultaneous penalties u/s 76 and 78 - Commercial coaching and training services - case of Revenue is that the assessee was aware about its service tax liability; despite this knowledge, it filed its returns claiming that no liabilities were attracted - Held that:- The appellant, when it smelt investigation and adverse orders, it apparently approached the service tax authorities and deposited the amounts which they were admittedly liable to pay. Such being the case of foreknowledge, in the opinion of the court, itself is an important factor that ought to have been and was taken into account by the lower revenue authorities. Hence, foreknowledge lead to the imposition of recovery of dues assessed as well as imposition of the penalty under Section 78 - penalty u/s 78 upheld. Penalty u/s 76 - effect of amendment, retrospective or prospective? - Held that:- The appellant’s contention with respect to retrospective effect of the amendment of Section 78 (which makes the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 mutually exclusively) are unsubstantial as this court in M/s. Bajaj Travels Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2011 (8) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the amendments are prospective in nature and cannot come to the aid of an assessee for past period - penalty u/s 76 also upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|