TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as the writ petition was rejected by the Hon ble High Court, the respondent instantly took the service tax registration and paid the service tax with interest as per their calculation much before the issuance of show cause notice, although the same was short by few thousand rupees. But that itself shows that there is no mala fide intention to evade the Service Tax on the part of the respondent. There is no suppression of fact because the issue involved is of interpretation of law as the confusion was prevailing amongst the builders about the constitutional validity of the levy of service tax on Builders and Developers. Therefore benefit of doubt that existed in the mind of the assessee is to be given to the respondent. It constitutes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -12. They noticed that the respondent took the service tax registration belatedly on 31.1.2012. Upon being pointing out by the revenue, the respondents calculated the amount of service tax and paid an amount of ₹ 28,30,446/- towards service tax 1.3.2012 with interest and further amount of ₹ 1,47,236/- on account of service tax with interest thereon was deposited at a later date. In total the respondent had deposited the amount of ₹ 29,77,682/- and interest of ₹ 3,67,932/-. 3. Since the department found mis-match between the ledger and the bank statement of the respondent, they issued letter dated 6.12.2013 to that effect. After investigation, the department was of the view that the service tax payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the levy of service tax on builders, the interim order issued, and the final decision taken by the Bombay High Court, it is seen that there were genuine reasons for not filing returns or obtaining registration by the appellant. However, it is seen that the appellants have paid the Service Tax of ₹ 29,77,682/-on 01.03.2012 immediately after the High Court final order dtd. 19.01.2012. However, small amount of ₹ 1,47,237/- was paid subsequently on 02.01.2014 with interest. Therefore, the appellants have proved their bonafides by paying the major amount immediately after final order of the High Court. The appellants did not pay the Service Tax because of the litigation before the High Court by association and the appellants cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax registration nor paid any service tax. The said writ petition was finally decided by the Hon ble High Court on 20.1.2012 by which the Hon ble High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant provision. As soon as the writ petition was dismissed, the respondent took service tax registration without wasting any time on 31.1.2012 and deposited the service tax amount of ₹ 28,30,446/- on 1.3.2012 and interest of ₹ 3,67,932/- on account of delayed payment of service tax. Since the amount deposited by the Appellant was short by ₹ 58,987/-, they tried to justify the non-payment of differential amount of service tax but that did not find favour with the learned Commissioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
