New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Vision Labs Institute Versus CCE C & ST Hyderabad-II

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 of FA, 1994 - It was noticed by the department that appellants did not file ST-3 returns and did not discharge their service tax liability for the period from April 2010 to March 2011 - case of appellant is that they had provided the services to Government Departments and they did not receive the service tax component. They could not discharge their tax liability only because of financial hardships - Held that: - total demand raised is arrived from the financial stat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposed u/s 77 of FA, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee. - ST/27327/2013 - A/30354/2017 - Dated:- 9-2-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. V.S. Sudhir, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Sh. M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [Order Per Sulekha Beevi, C. S.] 1. The above appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Brief facts of the case are that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 41,14,067/- for the said period. During the investigation, the appellants paid an amount of ₹ 27,78,816/- along with interest of ₹ 2,70,140/- and intimated the same to the department vide letter dated 12.03.2012. A show cause notice was issued dated 09.04.2012 raising demand of ₹ 41,14,067/- for the period April 2010 to March 2011. After due process of Law, the original authority confirmed the demand appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant and imposed equal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. That the appellant had provided the services to Government Departments and they did not receive the service tax component. They could not discharge their tax liability only because of financial hardships. It is submitted by him that the appellant is not guilty of any suppression of facts for the reason that the amount of service tax demanded has been arrived on the basis of the turnover reflected in the financial statements of the appellant. He relied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ai [2008 (9) STR 132 (Tri-Chennai)] to absolve the assessee from penalty imposed under Section 78. 4. Against this, the Ld. AR Sh. Chandra Bose reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that in para 11 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in detail that the appellants have not put forward reasonable cause to invoke Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 in order to give the benefit of penalty imposed under Section 78. The appellants have neither filed ST- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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