Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 8 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of Interest on delayed payment of service tax - reasonable cause for such failure present or not - HELD THAT:- The demand of interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory and the assessee has no escape from this liability. Neither does this Tribunal have the power to waive the demand under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 - there are no force in the submissions in the assessee’s appeal seeking waiver of the interest on the service tax amount payable by them either on account of renting of immovable property service rendered by them or on account of service tax collected by them on the loan application fees which was not deposited. The assessee’s appeals, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. Restoration of penalty imposed u/s 76, 77 and 78 of FA - assessee is a large non-banking finance corporation formed by the Government of Rajasthan -HELD THAT:- Merely because an organization is formed by the Government it does not get any special treatment with respect to the provisions of service tax. It is as liable to pay service tax as any other assessee. For failures, it is as liable to penalties as any other assessee. No more, no less. This takes us that the next question as to whether the assessee, in the factual matrix of this case can be said to have proved that it had reasonable cause for failure to pay service tax - On being pointed out, the assessee immediately paid the service tax along with interest. The assessee was also renting out some of its properties for commercial use and collected rent of about ₹ 13 lakhs. This activity was liable to service tax but the assessee had not paid service tax. On being pointed out, the assessee has immediately paid the service tax along with interest. Given this factual matrix, we are inclined to conclude that these were mere careless mistakes by the assessee without any intention to evade service tax. They fall within the scope of reasonable cause for failure the cause being ignorance or lack of due care. Therefore, the case falls within the mischief of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. It has been rightly invoked by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the penalties have been waived by him correctly. Appeal dismissed.
|