Subscription   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 →

Arti Infra Project Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Penalties u/s 76 and 78 - GTA services - works contract - case of appellant is that the works contract services provided by them to their client is exempted, thus they are under bonfide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax on the GTA service received by them - Held that: - provision of services under works contract has no relation with liability of appellant to pay service tax on the transportation service received by them. Provisions of works contract service to their client which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/89262/13 - A/87804/2017/STB - Dated:- 8-6-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. P. V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.P. Damle, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Raja This appeal has been filed by M/s. Arti Infra Project Pvt Ltd against the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties on the services of GTA received by them. It is noticed that the demand pertains t .....

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 on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in case of CCD, Chandigarh Vs. City Motors[2010(19)S.T.R. 486 (P&H). 3. Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rivals' submissions. 5. The appellant providing works contract service. Their defence against non payment of service tax on the GTA service received by them is that the works contract services provided by them to their client is exempted. Thus they are claimed to be under bon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice. We find that there is no ground of having any bonafide belief in favour of the appellant. The appellant had relied upon the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in case City Cable Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana[2017(48) S.T.R. 222 (P&H). In the said case it was clearly held that penalty under Section 78 was sufficient to cover default of service and therefore to penalty under Section 76 was not imposed in the said decision it has not been held that both cannot impose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in view of the conflicting decisions by the Hon'ble Kerala and Karnataka High courts. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of ACCE v. Krishna Poduval reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Ker.) held as foliows :- "11. The penalty imposable under Section 76 is for failure to pay Service Tax by the person liable to pay the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 and the rules made thereunder, whereas Section 78 relates to penalty for suppression of the value of taxabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view taken by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and held that Sections 76 and 78 operated in two different fields and penalty was imposable under both separately, even if offences were committed in course of the same transaction or arose out of the same act. However, since the law has been amended prospectively w.e.f. 10-5-2008 so as to bar the imposition of penalties simultaneously, only one of the penalties would survive and not both after the amendment. As regards the reference made by a Sing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, no reasons have been given as to why penalty is not imposable under both Sections 76 and 78 for the period prior to 10-5-2008. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has merely observed that - "it is now well settled that the liability cannot be imposed both under Sections 76 and 78" [2012 (26) S. T.R. 304 (Kar,)]. This is only an obiter dictum and does not lay down any ratio. In these circumstances, we do not find any .....

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