TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Chartered Accountant having discharged the entire tax liability and the interest thereof in the first place, revenue should not have issued show-cause notice to the appellant. We find that justifiable cause is made out by the appellant for setting aside the penalties imposed on him under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant under this head. Appellant is not able to explain why there are no bill numbers and the description in the bills also do not have any details to come to a conclusion that the architectural services were rendered by the appellant prior to 16/10/98. In all probabilities, fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f taxable services required under Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. Summonses were issued to the appellant who submitted various relevant documents under his letter dated 23/11/2000. As per initial scrutiny of documents the appellant paid service tax amount of ₹ 24,43,782/- for the period January 1999 to June 2000. On scrutiny of bills submitted by them it was also revealed that they had not declared complete details of the professional fees of ₹ 2,45,85,447/- received after 16/10/1998 for the work which they claimed had been done prior to 16/10/1998, but they did not submit any other documentary evidence. They had shown only the taxable value on which they had paid Service Tax as per their convenience. Investigations revealed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is his submission that the appellant during the pendency of the writ in the Hon'ble High Court paid service tax for the period from 16/10/1998 onwards. He would submit that the demands in the case in hand is in respect of three major heads; (i) disputed arrears of service tax paid before the issuance of show-cause notice amounts - ₹ 24,43,782/- (ii) Service tax is received after 16/10/98 for the services provided prior to 16/10/98 as also bills, which were prior to 16/10/98 an amount - ₹ 7,83,241/- (iii) Wrong calculation of service tax liability - ₹ 91,444/-. 5. He would submit that as regards the disputed arrears of ₹ 24,43,782/- they have already discharged the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,83,241/- it is his submission that the bills which have been raised by the appellant do not appear to be numbered nor does it was the architectural services rendered by the appellants and the services were rendered prior to 16/10/1998. It is his submission that the Revenue is unable to ascertain whether the appellant had rendered services in these cases even after 16/10/1998. As regards the calculation error he fairly submit that there seems to be an error demanding service tax liability of ₹ 91,444/-. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. It is an undisputed fact that the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of architectural services and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the revenue any further as the ratio/view of jurisdictional High Court was on legality and is to be followed. In our considered view, appellant having discharged the service tax liability and the interest thereof, before the due date as was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and two other petitioners who were rendering the same services are entitled for the relief as granted by the Hon'ble High Court., i.e. no penalty be imposed on them. We do not find any reason to deny the relief of setting aside of penalties. We also find strong force in the contention raised by the learned Chartered Accountant having discharged the entire tax liability and the interest thereof in the first place, revenue should not have issued sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility and ₹ 10 lakhs towards penalties, from which this amount may be adjusted. We find from the records that the appellant had deposited entire service tax liability and the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs during the pendency of the proceedings. The adjudicating authority is directed to work out the interest liability on the service tax liability of ₹ 7,83,241/- and after appropriating the said dues of service tax and interest, refund the balance amount back to the appellant. 7.3 As regards the penalties under this issue, we find that the appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief that the services rendered by him being prior to 16/10/98, the payments received for such services after the date, are not liable for service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
