Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S Vinayaka Travels on 27 January, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
_ 1 ..
EN 'THE HIGH COURT 0? KARMATAKA AT BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 27*" may 0? EANUARY PRESENT '_ 1'g] A THE HOFWBLE MR. 3L:sf1ff;<:E .
AND71 1' M THE HONBLE MR.}V1JSTICE ??_;i\ \;'I MA.VLi':v:A TH "
CEA Nc>.5_9~..Q:= 201:) * "
Bzrvi'-EEI§';'~'L;'.' M Commis$;ione=ar'of"E$e:<\{i"e:r:3 Fax, Service .V_Té:x C0mm'i'::<sioné'rate, No.16, S.P_,Comp1ex., "L;ei.l~'bagh Road, Baagvaiore -S6C+O2?. ...APPELLANT . " . v(V.ES'y Sfij Tj'%'§'«i?.7_VenE<Vé%éé Raddy, Advocate) Vé,.VEgf§,;;%1{§:%'~sé:Traveis Nd.34*--é34§""SeCond Floor, 14*" Main, HAL" II Eltage, * 5;a_nga"Iare - 560 008. Wagapomgm >§<>+K>§< Thég CEA flied 23369:" §€¢':é§r°: 35$ 3? the Centrai E><£E§& fiat, W44 graying Ea farmuiaie the S:;§S3:an%§§}§ ii]//,,,.. -
questions of iaw stated therein, set aside the _firra!.._:'d.rder i\id.?8S/2008 dated O8/0132008 in appeai Ne.$T_;'427;w20{}7 passed by the CESTAT, South Zone Beheij, 'biahgai-Q.re_V (Anne><Lrre--A).
This CE/A coming on for eVrdAer's'«thE-s_ ]3.., ' deiivered the foiiowingw A _ Juijg"-E&'i..EN"i"v.'V: V This is an apbeai the order gassed by the iiribuha.l , set aside the order of the Revisieha! iiiperraity for non-
payment sti pd I ated.
record discloses that the assessee'--..yva.sjr:a.rr~#,(i'n'd:_"~~'i'e'n the business of providing taxi s*e5::vi;:_es._ The«.p__a_rtnership business was constituted on ' The case bf the assessee was that he was not ".r:i'earVai3.V€jz5it'r1'the applicatior: ef the provisions of service tax as eras of the View that the "rent a cab scheme"
ieaeraitor shezrid own a mirzirmrm SO vehicies to obtain a iieehce and to Carry er': the business: Therefere, he did net register and did not pay the tax' amt drree the dedartmerztai efféeers irzfdrrhed hire that are; perseh S owning or eperating even with one vehicle wo:;i'd.,:'h.ev-e to pay the service tax, they registered March, 2003 and obtained a reg.i.s,t_tatie'iiH'oi{'_'2t§';03'i.2Q.Q3'§»_ Thereafter, on 03.08.2005, they~:.pai,'_eiPt's.;?'Z,G0:€;,§', the service tax payable. tete-K, they yvere 5by the authorities that they sheul,{i_l:V§;»»e_y'xihtetest,:,_i?rei*iiptly they have tiepeséted a eeiteof 05.08.2005, the interest eayaybiey is thereafter, a notice wee. eetieity. Therefore, they cont.eoti_e'oAA'_' have registered themselves undei*0't.h,e Actiieihiiey'ie{eiieV"'p"romptly paying the tax due and they-else Vthe tax on being informed, there is no wiitfui eytigpaymelnt of such amount and hence, they are the penalty and requested for waiver ef the g3'eea.il~'ty imeesed. The Oréginai Authority being , setieféeti with the explanation offered by them, Cenfirmed
-.,V"t.heA"deteehe ef Service Tax of Rs.?2,000/--~ arse eemend of gfhtetest ef Rs.32,S13;3 arse by ievekieg §eetien 80 ef the t 3 """" _' ....
Finance Act, 1994 declined to impose any pena§i§3"««.ri"hder Sections 76, 77 or 78 of the Finance Act, 1§€§¢§--. ll"
3, The Commissioner in e><e'rLiVse__o*f h'l.S"f§,Lj.Q'VI;f':lQfi':G ' revisional power initiated»iVp_rocee'oAihgs for.v--"-review °'of'*thei' said order and held after h'ea:rlng the~.a§se'Ssee, that the cause shown by h§f§§.,,,i_doe'S.WhVo't:.._Vcto'r"i«stitoteV'Half reasonable cause for the failure to provisions and therefore, Se'c;oi§m ais-Vino'::"eiftre_Cifed. Therefore, he confi.rrrred:'tjh§%'«:_;y,r'<:le'i'--ahal 'd'irec:"teo payment of penalty. Aggrieveti VthTeii.ea»rr_ier.,..Ithlehassessee preferred an appeal to the tVriib_on.,al'.i -fl"h'e"tr.i"l5unal on examination of the entire nfriétterifai on ret;or._d_.heEd by relying on severai judgments, fiothat i"th_e assessee has deposited the service tax "along with the interest before the issue of a Show cause noltigeianycii when the maiteriai on record shows that they 2 had' ho intention to evade duty because of confusion "gcreateé in their rninde, as they were under a booefloe H belief; they were not éiaoée to pay oenaity, Hence the Qrigihai fiaothoriiy wag goetifieo in riot EiT'i$8$§{"§§) any «z'.7""TT.""' TL.
penaity. Therefore, it set aside the order of thejR--e$2*is'i*o4na! Authority aria restored the order of the Originai,:}i§'ii§E'ito?ri'tyi;v.4_ Aggtieveci by the same, revenueiisiinyapg'§eaiq." i
4. From the aforesaid fatfitsg it isv.ii:iear," ti~ia'ii'i:ii:-:_ assessee came to be conéitiituted i'rr._Apr'iJ 25002 as a partnership firm. A:d~n1itt_ehtiiy;*ttie.y'~-.were 'operating one taxi. The assessee wa'e._VentiVeft th.e"itjj_oEession that only those perso:iS"i¢v:i*e'o ois.;i;n=:50; ta>«:is 'ia'nd._.oarry on business are iiabIe~to~ 'sei1*g;éiiee"'ta:<.,' 'AC'Co-atiéngly, he did not seek for regist.r_ation noisfeaid,any"'amount towards tax. But once the aUt¥3AC'il:'E't§'£:3,SVV'i3'r(jL§§i}h1;"iVit to their notice; that the Act is a»p§3lica'bie even' «tc_>._..tt:e person who owns one taxi, ptomptiy ' Lytizey~i:egis«te"r'e<:i under the Act and from that day onwards, weiie oeying the service tax. Because of the delay in oaiymventiof service tax, they are iiabie to pay interest. 2 'they oromptly paid the interest also. It is after payment 'got eervice tax and intereet, a derneee was made for H payment of eeneity, Ttietefere; in the facts ef the ease, it cennet be gate that they intendee te evade euti; ane there E;
was any maiafide motive or intention in net p~e*;irig'__'_£h'e_i{ax within the time prescribed. Therefere,_the---23utiij'0rities"iiiji*__ exercise 01' their discretion unifiier '78*Ci._': T which is conferred en theme', iieid 'i:----hei:~.the sho'i§rii'iis"asV reasonabie cause and waiveEi's»té.i'ie pena'ityfwi1ic:i'; is pureiy 3 question of fact. No? '::.ubsi:'an';:i:a*i :.g;:.,{es«tiori ofiiieivv arises for consideration in this ap'ipeai'.;"V in .~t.i1es;e __C'.ircu:'*r*sstances, we do not see :an';»«T:.;{i1-'erit=__in gthié a'p§eé*ii..........7 .iv*CensAe:}uefi::.§'y., 'nQ"use-fui'r~»,r3u"rpose win he served in order~i.ng"r§otir:e'65:5,trie4e;:s.;j"iic_afion forcoridonatier: of deiay. Acc0rdi:é'§;'i.yg Misc-_ CA1;/iii 'Q1505! 10 is aise dismissed. iiirsii