The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi confirmed the penalty and demand for suppression of facts in Service Tax case.
Facts
M/s Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non-Veg. Restaurant, Hospital Road, Beawar Dist. Ajmer is engaged in providing “Restaurant services” but is neither registered with the department not paying service tax, the Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax Range, Beawar visited the business premises of the M/s Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non-Veg. Restaurant, Hospital Road, Beawar Dist. Ajmer.
It appeared that Restaurant is engaged in providing taxable service viz „Restaurant service‟. Hence, the service provider was requested to get themselves registered with the department to pay service tax and also provide details of the amount received on account of services provided by them during the period from May 2011 and onwards.
Whereas, it appears that the Service Provider has provided the services under the category of “Restaurant Service” defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzv) & is taxable under Section 66 till 31.12.2013 and thereafter under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 and having a valid license to serve alcoholic beverages issued by the State Govt. Authorities. During the period from May 2011 to March 2015 the notice appears to have evaded service tax of Rs. 6,36,396/- under Restaurant service and the same appears recoverable from them in terms of provision to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75.
Decision
The division bench of Binu Tamta, Member (Judicial) and P. V. Subba Rao, Member (Technical) concluded that the extended period of limitation is clearly applicable as the appellant suppressed the correct fact with regard to the facility of AC being available at the restaurant and mis-represented and misguided the department with the sole intent to evade payment of duty.
The bench observed that the intention to evade duty is writ large in the conduct of the appellant and it cannot be said to be a case of bonafide belief of non liability of service tax or a case of ignorance of service tax liability. For the said reasons, penalty under section 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act,1994 is confirmed.
The Tribunal said that unless and until, the appellant is able to produce any cogent and substantive evidence in support of his statement that he does not have the AC facility in the restaurant, he is not eligible to claim the benefit of the exemption notification.
The bench upheld the demand of service tax for the period from 01.05.2011 to 31.03.2015 alongwith penalty under Section 77(1)(a), 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944.
Case title: Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg. & Non-veg. Restaurant v/s Commissioner and Additional Director General
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No. 51002 of 2018
