LAJPAT RAI JINDAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was heard yesterday. Ld. AR pleaded that the appellant is covered by Amnesty Circular No. 18/04 -ST, dated 23 -9 -2004 and having paid their entire tax liability with interest, there should not be levy of penalty.

(2.) TODAY the Circular aforesaid has been produced by ld. AR for consideration. The claim of Circular No. 18/2004 -ST, dated 23 -9 -2004 appears to be a trade notice. Even the contents of that particular document, does not come to rescue of the appellant, since the appellant's case was much earlier to that and they were under the fold of law. Therefore, the so -called Circular is of no use for the appellant. This is precisely the submission of the ld. Dr.

(3.) AS the matter stood as above, the factual scenario suggests that the appellant is a small taxpayer, who came forward to discharge its tax liability, as soon as that was pointed out and also conceived by the assessee. There is no dispute that the appellant has paid the tax with interest as that was due for the impugned period. But only question comes for decision is whether the appellant shall be liable to penalty, when there was a delay in defaulting the payment of tax due. The case does not appear to be a case of mala fide. The appellant having discharged the tax liability with interest and also pleading made today that when the liability was discharged with interest, no show -cause notice should have been issued, in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, as well as looking to the gravity of the show -cause notice dated 14 -3 -2005, it would be proper to waive the entire penalty levied on the appellant, when the case does not fall under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Appellate Order is set aside.