Commissioner Of Service Tax ... vs Indian Security Service
- CitationAppeal No. 236-2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a service provider has in fact paid the service tax due, though under the wrong assessee's name by mistake, and the Commissioner has verified the documentary evidence and found the payment to be a mistake, the demand is not sustainable and a penalty equal to the tax is not warranted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 236-2011 dated 29/03/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals-II), Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Service Tax BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,above BMTC BUS STAND,DOMLUR BANGALORE, - 560071 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
INDIAN SECURITY SERVICE 2ND FLOOR, CHURCH ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANGERE 577002 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri S. Ilangovan, Assistant Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
None For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 12/06/2015
Date of Decision: 12/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21339 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The respondent was providing security service and proceedings were initiated against the respondent that they had not discharged the service tax liability about Rs.5,50,000/-. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty was imposed on the respondent under Section 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner(Appeals) dropped the demands but upheld the penalty imposed under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 accepting the submissions that the respondent had paid the service tax but by mistake in the name of one M/s. R.S. Singh & Co.
2. Learned AR would submit that since the respondent had not paid the tax in their own name, dropping of the demand and imposition of penalty under Section 78 is not proper.
3. I have considered the submissions. I do not find anything wrong in the observation of the Commissioner who has verified the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant and satisfied himself that the appellant has paid the service tax in the name of M/s. R.S. Singh & Co. by mistake. Even in the appeal memorandum or in the submission made before me, there is nothing to say that this is wrong. In such a situation, apparently, the service tax has been paid and therefore the decision taken by the Commissioner(Appeals) that imposition of penalty equal to the service tax is not warranted and accepting the mistake as a mistake is sustainable. Accordingly, I do not find anything wrong and I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free