Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

N & N Chopra Consltants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Goods & Service Tax &Central Excise,Delhi East
August, 21st 2018

Subject:The assessee is engaged in providing commercial coaching and training services and therefore,

Referred Sections:
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,
Section 83 of the Finance Act,
Section 73(1)
section 68 of the Act;
Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act
Section 66 of the Act;
Section 140 of the Finance Act,
Section 75 of the Act
section 66 of the Act
Section 140 of the Finance Act;”
Section 35E and 86 of the Finance Act,
Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act,
Section 78.

Referred Cases / Judgments
M/s. Raval Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
M/s. Bajaj Travels Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu Property Dealers

$~45
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                               Date of Order: July 24, 2018
+    SERTA 20/2018, C.M. APPL. No. 29038-29039/2018
     N & N CHOPRA CONSLTANTS PVT. LTD.
                                                             ..... Appellant
                        Through:      Mr. Karan Sachdev, Mr. Yogendra
                                      Aldak, Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocates

                        versus

     PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, GOODS & SERVICE TAX
     &CENTRAL EXCISE,DELHI EAST
                                                ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Senior Standing
                           Counsel

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
                           ORDER
     %
     S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)

           The question which the assessee urges in this appeal under
     Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made by virtue of
     Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is that the multiple penalties
     imposed in the circumstances of the case were excessive.
           The assessee is engaged in providing commercial coaching and
     training services and therefore, he is subject to service tax levy under
     the Finance Act, 1994. It was registered as a service tax assessee and
     it appears to have not paid up his liability for the period 09.09.2004 to
     31.03.2008, however, he filed its returns stating that there was no






SERTA 20/2018                                                   Page 1 of 5
     service tax liability. The Income Tax Search and Seizure proceedings
     apparently triggered investigations by the Service Tax Authorities.
     The Assesssee in these circumstances offered to pay service tax dues
     and filed returns on 02.03.2009. In the meanwhile, a show cause
     notice was issued on 23.06.2009. For a later period, the assessee again
     approached the Service Tax Authorities, conceding its liability and
     offering to pay up its dues. The show cause notice culminated in order
     in original dated 06.01.2012. Besides the tax liability, the Learned
     Commissioner (Adjudication), who adjudicated show cause notice,
     ordered, imposing penalties. The relevant part of the extract of the
     Commissioner's order reads as follows:

           "ORDER
           i.     I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to
                  Rs.26,36,988/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh thirty six
                  thousand nine hundred eighty eight only) against the
                  assessee i.e. M/s. N.N. Chopra Consultant Pvt. Ltd. on
                  the value of taxable service amounting to
                  Rs.2,44,74,902/- under Commercial training and
                  Coaching Service and the same be recovered from them
                  under Section 73(1) read with section 68 of the Act;

           ii.    I confirm the demand of Cess amounting to Rs.58,740/-
                  (Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred forty only) on
                  the amount of service tax shown in para 70.1 against
                  them under Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004
                  read with Section 66 of the Act;

           iii.   I confirm the demand of SHEC amounting to Rs.29,370/-
                  (Rupees twenty nine thousand three hundred seventy
                  only) on the amount of service tax shown in para 70.1
                  against them under Section 140 of the Finance Act,
                  2007;
SERTA 20/2018                                                  Page 2 of 5
           iv.    Interest at the appropriate rate on the above amounts is
                  also chargeable from them under Section 75 of the Act
                  on the aforesaid amount till the date of payment of the
                  service tax;

           v.     I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to
                  Rs.4,64,867/- (Rupees four lakh sixty four thousand eight
                  hundred sixty seven only) against the assessee i.e. M/s.
                  N&N Chopra Consultant Pvt. Ltd. on the value of taxable
                  service amounting to Rs.43,53,501/- under Business
                  Auxiliary Service and the same be recovered from them
                  under Section 73 (1) read with Section 68 of the Act;
           vi.    I confirm the demand of Cess amounting to Rs,8,165/-
                  (Rupees eight thousand one hundred sixty five only) on
                  the amount of service tax shown in para 70.5 against
                  them under Section 95 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004
                  read with section 66 of the Act;
           vii.   I confirm the demand of SHEC amounting to Rs.1,074/-
                  (Rupees one thousand and seventy four only) on the
                  amount of serviced tax shown in para 70.5 against them
                  under Section 140 of the Finance Act;"






           The assessee's appeal to the Tribunal under Section 35E and 86
     of the Finance Act, 1994, was rejected by the impugned order. The
     Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings and penalties imposed
     by the Commissioner rejecting the contention that in the
     circumstances of the case, the contention about the excessive
     imposition of penalties both under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance
     Act, 1994. The appellant urges that the Tribunal fell into error, in
     upholding the two penalties and relies upon the judgments in M/s.
     Raval Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Service Tax ­ 2016 (42)
     STR 210 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
SERTA 20/2018                                                 Page 3 of 5
     High Court-in the case of First Flight Courier Ltd. - 2011 (22) STR
     622 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Pannu
     Property Dealers, Ludhiana (STA No. 13 of 2010 decided on 12-7-
     2010), 2011 (24) STR 173 (P&H). It is submitted that the appellant had
     deposited the additional amount of Rs.5,06,270/- after the show cause
     notice was issued and had paid Rs.34 lakhs prior to that. Given these
     facts, he states that imposition of any penalty under Section 76 was
     itself unjustified.
            The facts of this case, in the opinion of this court, notes that the
     assessee was aware about its service tax liability; despite this
     knowledge, it filed its returns claiming that no liabilities were
     attracted. When it smelt investigation and adverse orders, it
     apparently approached the service tax authorities and deposited the
     amounts which they were admittedly liable to pay. Such being the
     case of foreknowledge, in the opinion of the court, itself is an
     important factor that ought to have been and was taken into account
     by the lower revenue authorities. Hence, foreknowledge lead to the
     imposition of recovery of dues assessed as well as imposition of the
     penalty under Section 78. The court is of the opinion that the
     invocation of Section 78 cannot be faulted with having regard to the
     facts of this case. Depositing the amount due, by the appellant, before
     issuance of show cause notice per se does not absolve the appellant of
     its responsibility to file the returns, since the option of imposing other
     penalty under Section 76 was exercised. Being a matter of discretion,
     its judicious exercise, is all that is in question. Having regard to the
     fact of concurrent findings, we are of the opinion that the exercise of
SERTA 20/2018                                                     Page 4 of 5
     such discretion reserving imposition of Section 76 in the
     circumstances, does not call for interference.
           The appellant's contention with respect to retrospective effect
     of the amendment of Section 78 (which makes the imposition of
     penalties under Section 76 and 78 mutually exclusively) are
     unsubstantial as this court in M/s. Bajaj Travels Limited vs.
     Commissioner of Service Tax (CEAC 6/2009, decided on 03.08.2011)
     2012 (25) STR 417 held that the amendments are prospective in
     nature and cannot come to the aid of an assessee for past period.
           In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the
     appellant is dismissed and disposed of as such.




                                                  S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J



                                                       A. K. CHAWLA, J
     JULY 24, 2018
     pkb




SERTA 20/2018                                                  Page 5 of 5

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting