SUSHANT GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is an individual and is engaged in providing consulting engineering services. There was delay in payment of Service tax as well as in filing the returns. However, even though there was delay, it was always paid with interest. Therefore the penal proceedings have been initiated only because of delay in filing the returns and delay in payment of Service tax.

(2.) IT was submitted by the learned advocate that the appellant is an individual and he has to look after all the work himself. He had paid service tax with interest even before show cause notice was issued and the delay occurred because of the fact that the appellant underwent surgery and was staying outside the city.

(3.) ON the other hand learned DR submits that appellant made contradictory claims about undergoing surgery and being outstation on tour. Therefore, the Provisions of Section 80 or Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 and the appellant had paid the Service tax with interest though belatedly before issue of show cause notice.