Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 172 - HC - Service TaxImposition of penalty - Appellant did not file the ST-3 returns nor paid service tax within the stipulated time under the Act - HELD THAT:- The SCN was issued to the Appellant consequent to investigation done by the department and on failure of the Appellant to respond to the various letters addressed by the department directing the Appellant to pay the dues along with interest. It was only consequent to investigation and summoning the proprietor that not only was the service tax for the period involved in the present show cause notice paid along with interest but also service tax which was not paid for the earlier period was paid by the Appellant on his own. In this case the Appellant does not dispute the demand of service tax even after payment of tax before the issue of show cause notice as it is found that there is suppression of fact on the part of the Appellant. The penalty which has been imposed under Section 78 of the Act is only a consequence of the demand being confirmed on account of suppression of facts. Therefore, in the above facts there is no merit in this submission and would not give rise to any substantial question of law. The notice which was issued to the Appellant was on invoking the extended period of limitation and that has not been a subject of challenge before the Tribunal or before us - The Appellant does not dispute that so far as demand is concerned the extended period of limitation is applicable. The view taken by the authorities under the Act has found that the conduct of the Appellant is soiled with suppression of facts. This finding of fact is a possible view. Nothing has been shown to us which indicate non consideration of the above submission. Thus the imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Act cannot be faulted. The question of invoking of Section 80 of the Act in such cases would not arise because Section 78 of the Act itself supposes lack of bona-fides on the part of the assessee and this view has not been shown to be perverse. In these circumstances, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|