Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Gurbaksh Singh Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi

2016 (9) TMI 741 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Levy of penalty - delayed payment of service tax - As per the appellant, the said service tax was not deposited as their customer had not given the tax amount and they were under the bonafide impression that if tax payment has not been paid by the customers, same need not be deposited. As soon as the Revenue pointed out that, they deposited the tax along with interest on 16.9.2008. - Held that:- Non-receipt of amount of service tax from his client cannot be adopted as a excuse for non-payment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the assessee even if it has received free supply items from his clients, we are of the view that appellants duty liability is required to be requantified in terms of law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Matter remanded back. - Decided partly in favor of assessee. - ST/37/2010 - Final Order No. 53151/2016 - Dated:- 12-8-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri J .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere discharging service tax liability accordingly. 2. The demand in the present case pertains to two different periods. It is seen that during the period 2005-2006, the appellants claimed the benefit of notification No. 15/2004, which allowed abatement to the extent of 67% of the value of the goods (from 2005 -2007). The said denial was on the ground that the appellants have received material from the service recipient, free of cost, and as such, benefit of abatement cannot be extended to them. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Revenue's stand and the confirmation of demand on the said count cannot be upheld 3. The second limb of the demand pertains to the period 2007-2008. It is undisputed fact on record, admitted by the appellant himself that during the said period, no service tax returns were filed and no service tax was paid. The same was pointed out by the Revenue vide their letter dated 25.4.08 and it is only thereafter the appellant deposited the service tax along with interest. As per the appellant, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing for the Revenue, submits that the appellant was registered service tax payee and were duly filing the return for the previous two financial years. As such, it can be safely concluded that the appellant was aware of his liability to pay service tax. During the subsequent financial year 2007 -2008 also non-filing of return and non payment of service tax reflects upon the malafide of the appellant, thus calling for imposition of penalties. Accordingly, she prays for upholding the impugned order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version