GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (7) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2017 (7) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - 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 wor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 78 can be imposed simultaneously. - Appeal 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand prior to 10-5-2008. The appellant relied 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 e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with they are liable for tax with the GTA service. 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 decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2012 (25) S.T.R. 417] also concurred with the 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 amen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on'ble Supreme Court. Further we note that 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 rat .....

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