ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The two applicants before me are engaged in recruitment of manpower. Each of them was required to pay service tax on the activity of manpower recruitment. By the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed penalty imposed on them and interest demanded from each of the appellants before me by the Deputy Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise, Mumbai. The Deputy Commissioner imposed penalties and demanded interest on the ground that the appellants did not pay service tax payable by them in respect of the manpower recruitment in which they were engaged upon.
2. The tax in question by each of the appellants and there is no claim in the appeal with regard to the interest. These appeals are limited to imposition of penalty. Counsel contends that there is no reasonable cause for imposition of penalty. Upon the introduction of service tax on the activity of appellants, they, through their association and various persons having position in Central Government represented to the Ministry for the repeal. They were genuinely under the impression that the government would not continue with tax as it has happened with regard to service tax on transporters. The penalty therefore should not be imposed.
3. I do not find it possible to accept this contention. It is the duty of every taxpayer to pay the tax imposed on him by Parliament. The appellants’ liability to pay service tax commenced from the date on which the provisions of the tax were extended to manpower recruiting agencies. Certainly, each of the appellants had a right to protest the tax and seek legal means to do so. However, they could not at the same time refuse to pay the tax in question. It is not for this Tribunal to comment on the correctness or otherwise of the government’s action in giving in to the demands of transporters by withdrawing the service tax imposed upon them. However, this Tribunal cannot have any option but to say that every person must conform to the law, and be prepared to pay the price if he chooses not to be so. I do not find it possible to say that where a person chooses not to pay the tax that he knows is payable on the expectation that the methods that he employs will succeed, and the tax will be withdrawn, he has acted in good faith. On the other hand, such a person deliberately and wilfully chooses not to pay tax. We need to reflect only for a moment to see that if such an attitude is practised by the majority with regard to charges that they are required to pay for goods and services enjoyed by them, there will be a complete breakdown of society. Nor do I find it possible to say that the refusal by the appellants was based on a moral objection to the levy of tax. No such claim is made, either. In these circumstances I do not find any justification for reduction of penalty.
4. Appeals dismissed.