Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Aqua Master Clean Versus CST Ahmedabad

2015 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Penalty u/s 76, 77 & 78 - non-payment of service tax due to financial hardship - Appellant is not contesting the Service Tax liability alongwith interest but are claiming waiver of penalty under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - Cleaning services - Held that:- The amount of Service Tax required to be paid for this period was more than ₹ 1 Crore. There is weight in the argument of the Appellant that due to payment of earlier dues, there was a financial difficulty in making the payment when .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od involved in these demands, but it gives an indication that there was a financial hardship on the part of the Appellant for not discharging the duty liability for the year 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 in time. Accordingly, it is held that there was a reasonable cause and the case of the Appellant is covered by the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/11008,11009/2014 - Order No.A/ 11048-11049/2015 - Dated:- 21-7-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nquiry was initiated against the Appellant by Department and Appellant was required to pay Service Tax from 2006-2008 to 2011-2012. That for the period before 2010-2011, when Appellant was not registered, there was huge liability of past dues, which was paid by the Appellant from the current receipts from the service recipients. That for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, inspite of Service Tax being recovered from the customers, Appellant could not pay the Service Tax because the revenue generat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by Income Tax Department indicating that payments from their clients were directly taken by the Income Tax Department as they were not able to pay the income tax dues. 3. Shri T.K. Sikdar, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that for the Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, Appellant was recovering Service Tax also from his clients but the same was not being paid to the Department. It was, thus, strongly argued by the learned Authorised Representativ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version