Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (1) TMI 718

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding Telephone Services which was incorporated into a body corporate with effect from 01.10.2000. Till 01.10.2000 Telephone Services in the Secondary Switching Area was being provided directly by the Department of Telecommunications. The Telephone Services were made liable for service tax vide Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 and in terms of Section 69, the Department of Telecommunications has obtained registration for payment of service tax and filing returns. After the incorporation of BSNL the special provisions were made. As per the Ministry of Communications letter dated 18.12.2000 addressed to all heads of BSNL circles, in order to avoid delay in payment it was suggested that service tax are paid by the circles to the DOT cells who c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he category of Telephone Service nor paid service tax amounting to Rs. 19,25,24,033/- (Rupees Nineteen Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Thirty Three only) due for the period from 01.10.2000 to 31.03.2002 through TR-6 Challans as required under Section 68 of the said Act read with Rule 6(2) of the Service Tax Rules. But instead paid the said amount as per the procedure adopted by them as mentioned in their letter dated 04.04.2001. They also did not file ST-3 Returns as required under Section 70. Non-compliance of the above requirement is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 69, 68 and 70 rendering the appellant liable to be penalized under Sections 75A, 76 and 77 of the said Act. Thereafter a show-cause dated 08.10. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Besides this the Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,900/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred only) under Section 76 of the Finance Act for not paying the service tax on the due dates itself for the months of October 2000 to September 2001, November 2001 to May 2002, July 2002, April 2003 and July 2003 which is calculated @ Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) per day for the period during which the delay caused in remitting the tax to the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as there was no delay on their part i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not get themselves registered in spite of intimation by the Department. He further submitted that when there is a delay in payment of service tax to the Government, charging of interest is automatic. In support of his submission he relied upon the following authorities: (i) Indoworth (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (27) S.T.R. 3 (Bom.) (ii) Indoworth (India) Ltd. 2011 (22) S.T.R. 197 (Tri.-Mum.) (iii) Tata Steel Ltd. 2013 (29) S.T.R. 541 (Tri.-Kolkata) (iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2013 (30) S.T.R. 441 (Tri.-Del.) (v) SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C) 4.1. Further perusal of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner in para 21 has observed as under: "I find from the case records that M/s BSNL were following a practice of r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... il 2003 and July 2003. This has resulted in the violation of the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994." 4.2. Further in the case of CCE Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C), Honble Supreme Court has held that delay in payment of duty for whatever reasons, attracts interest. 5. Therefore keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties and the perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that the appellant is liable to pay the interest for the delayed period. Further as far as penalty is concerned, we find that the Department has not been able to establish that there was a malafide intention of the appellant for evasion of tax and for late payment of tax. The delay has occurred because o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates