Sajjan Kumar Kariwala Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. by the captioned appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the commr. (appeals) imposing a penalty of rs. 9,000/-.2. the facts of the case are that the appellant is required to file quarterly return st-3 in terms of section 70(1) of the finance act, 1994 for the quarter ending september, 1994. as the appellant did not submit the requisite return in time, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking him to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed. the asstt. commr. imposed a penalty of rs. 9,000/- at the rate of rs. 100/- per day for 90 days u/s 77 of the chapter v of the finance act, 1994.3. shri r.k.s. rastogi, consultant, appeared for appellant and shri a.k. agarwal, ld. sdr, appeared for the respondent commissioner. after hearing their submissions, pre-deposit of penalty was waived. with the consent of both the parties, it was decided to hear the case on merits.4. the appellant submitted that he was not operating his business for a long time and that even at the time of filing the appeal, he was not doing any business and therefore, there was no service tax leviable on him. he submitted that the service tax return for the quarter in question was nil and was submitted a little late. he submitted that the appellant was a new assessee and he was not conversant with the precise requirement of the law; that it was his first return and therefore, some problem was faced by him.5. after careful consideration of the submissions, i find that service tax was introduced as a new tax. i also observe that the appellant was a new assessee and was not conversant with the filing of the tax.further, i also observe that the appellant was not doing any business and his tax return for the quarter was nil. looking to the totality of the circumstances and the facts of the case, i hold that no case for imposing penalty is made out. in the circumstances, i set aside the order imposing the penalty.

Judgment:
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the Commr. (Appeals) imposing a penalty of Rs. 9,000/-.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is required to file Quarterly return ST-3 in terms of Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the Quarter ending September, 1994. As the appellant did not submit the requisite return in time, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking him to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed. The Asstt. Commr. imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for 90 days u/s 77 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Shri R.K.S. Rastogi, Consultant, appeared for appellant and Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. SDR, appeared for the respondent Commissioner. After hearing their submissions, pre-deposit of penalty was waived. With the consent of both the parties, it was decided to hear the case on merits.

4. The appellant submitted that he was not operating his business for a long time and that even at the time of filing the appeal, he was not doing any business and therefore, there was no service tax leviable on him. He submitted that the service tax return for the quarter in question was nil and was submitted a little late. He submitted that the appellant was a new assessee and he was not conversant with the precise requirement of the law; that it was his first return and therefore, some problem was faced by him.

5. After careful consideration of the submissions, I find that service tax was introduced as a new tax. I also observe that the appellant was a new assessee and was not conversant with the filing of the tax.

Further, I also observe that the appellant was not doing any business and his tax return for the quarter was nil. Looking to the totality of the circumstances and the facts of the case, I hold that no case for imposing penalty is made out. In the circumstances, I set aside the order imposing the penalty.