PRAKSHAL INFOTECH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Chartered Accountant Shri Vipul Kandhar submits that the service tax was demanded for the period from 9 -7 -2004 to 9 -9 -2004. During that period the services of Computer Training provided by them was not exempted because of omission to include the same in the exemption Notification. His contention is that the computer training was exempted during the period 1 -7 -2003 to 9 -7 -2004 and thereafter again on 10 -9 -2004, the exemption was extended to these services and which was finally withdrawn on 26 -6 -2005. The appellants have been paying service tax after 16 -6 -2005 without fail. Only during the period of 59 days from 9 -7 -2004 to 10 -9 -2004, it was omitted to note the removal of exemption for a short period, appellants have not paid service tax. As soon as they were informed by the department about their liability, they have paid service tax with interest. He also submits that penalty under Section 78 has also been paid as per the law in full. His only request is to grant stay against recovery of penalty under Sections 76 and 77, imposed on them.

(2.) I find that the issue involved is very short one and matter can be decided finally at this stage instead of granting stay and taking up at a later stage.

(3.) LD . DR submits that appellants have failed to pay service tax and also cites the decision of Honble High Court of Kerala [2006 (1) S.T.R. 185 (Kerala)] in support of his contention that where service tax has not been paid penalty cannot be waived. On the other hand ld. Chartered Accountant submits that in the case of Doon Institute of Information Tech. Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (12) S.T.R. 459 (Tri. - Del.)], the Tribunal had considered the issue and had held that vocational training covers computer training also. However, In view of the fact that exemption was not withdrawn only for a period of 59 days, I find that there are no sufficient grounds to believe that there was an intention to evade tax. As soon as it was pointed out to the appellant, they had paid the tax with interest. They have also paid penalty under Section 78. In view of the circumstances in this case that the exemption had been withdrawn for a period of 59 days in between, I find that this a fit case for extending benefit of lenient view under Section 80 and waive the penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition is also disposed of.