Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1622/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1622 of 2010
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S
IDEAL SECURITY ORGANISATION - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KALPESH N SHASTRI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 24/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Revenue
is in appeal against judgement of the tribunal dated 1.1.2010. Issue
pertains to penalty of Rs.50,000/- under the Finance Act 1994 imposed
on the respondent. Such penalty was deleted by the tribunal on
following grounds :
“I
have considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the
quantum of service tax demanded, it is quite clear that the firm is a
very small concern. Further, the appellant willingly paid service tax
and interest the moment it was pointed out to him. Even though it can
be said that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse, but it can be only
one of the factors while considering imposition of penalty. Further,
I also find support from the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the
learned advocate as regards invocation of Section 80 of the Finance
Act, 1994. In view of the above discussion, I consider this could be
a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties and accordingly
grant waiver. Since matter was heard at length and the issue involved
is only penalty, I take up the appeal itself for final disposal. In
view of the fact that issue regarding imposition of penalty has been
considered in detail and it was found that the penalty is imposable
in this case by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, I set
aside the impugned order and the penalties imposed on the appellant
and allow the appeal.”
We
find that Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 gives discretionary
powers to waive penalty. Sufficient cause is shown by assessee for
not able to pay tax in time. We further find that assessee had paid
tax though belatedly. Additionally we also find that amount involved
is also small. No question of law is arising for our consideration.
Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.)
(raghu)
Top