By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
Where it was already established that extended period was applicable on account of suppression of facts, there cannot be any reasonable failure for payment of service tax—section 80 cannot be invoked and thus penalty u/s. 78 was upheld.
Facts:
The Appellant was engaged in management of cars/ scooter parking facilities at an airport under the license obtained from the airports authority on which the department confirmed the tax under “Airport Services”. The commissioner upheld the liability but dropped the penalties u/s.s 76, 77 and 78. It was contended that the demand was time-barred for the reason that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) did not authorise them to collect service tax until 01-03-2006 and as they were working on behalf of AAI, they were not a service provider. The revenuein its appeal contended that the order of the Commissioner was bad in law inasmuch as even after finding that the appellant collected service tax for the period 10-09-2004 till 31-03-2006, there was suppression of facts and demanded tax for the longer period. Therefore the penalties u/s.s 76, 77 and 78 were dropped wrongly by granting the benefit of section 80.
Held:
Perusing the Commissioner’s order, the Hon. Tribunal, rejecting the appellant’s appeal, observed that since the Commissioner upheld extended period and confirmed the whole of the demand affirming suppression of facts by the assessee, penalty u/s. 78 was leviable.
