Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 10 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of Service Tax - Mentioning of wrong service tax registration in the payment challan for two months - Mentioning of wrong location code [i.e. Kolkata Commissionerate code (SB0302) instead of Haldia Commissionerate Code (700602)] in the payment challan from May, 2007 to February, 2008 - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has discharged their Service Tax liability under RCM on GTA services. They have deposited the service tax in the account of Kolkata Commissionerate (AABCT1389BST002) instead of Haldia Commissionerate (AABCT1389BST001). The mistake in remittance of service tax in a difference service tax registration of the same assesse is a matter of internal adjustment at department’s end and the assesse cannot be saddled with the demand of service tax again. This clarification has been issued by Board in Circular No 58/07/2003 dated 20/05/2003 and communicated to the trade vide Trade Notice No 03/2014 dated 10/07/2014 by Cochin Commissionerate - From the circular it is clear that the discrepancy such as payment of service tax under wrong registration can be adjusted against the correct registration for which the service tax is actually due. Accordingly, in the light of the above circular, the department could have made the necessary adjustment instead of raising the demand on the appellant. In the case of AURO PUMPS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2017 (7) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the duty is said to have been paid under incorrect assessee code i.e. Code no. 001 instead of Code No. 002. The Hon’ble High Court held that when authorities’ stand became very clear no demand of duty or any sum payable from the petitioners so far as assessee code No. 001 is concerned and when the authority has also knowledge that there was a mistaken payment made under challan, which contained incorrect code i.e. Code no. 001, though it belonged to present assessee, who also has Code No. 002 also and two unequivocally intended to make payment demand, which was payable to him and which was paid, though mistakenly under wrong code i.e. Code no. 001, could not have been subjected to technical defect on the part of authority, so as to saddle with liability. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. In view of the above cited decisions, Board Circular and Trade Notice issued by Cochin Commissionerate, we hold that the demand of service tax, Education Cess, etc along with interest under section 75 of the Finance Act 1994, confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside - Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable in this case, since service tax has already been paid to the government account. Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 is imposable only when service tax has not been paid to the Government Account - Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable in this case, since non mentioning of GTA services in the service tax registration is a merely procedural lapse. Hence Department’s appeal is not sustainable. Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
|