TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court restores construction firm's appeals, balancing financial hardship and revenue protection.</h1> <h3>Kishorkumar Gokaldas Developers & Promoters Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax</h3> Kishorkumar Gokaldas Developers & Promoters Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax - 2015 (37) S.T.R. 442 (Mad.) Issues:Challenging tribunal's order on non-compliance with pre-deposit, financial hardship plea, legal precedents consideration, undue financial hardship, compliance with pre-deposit, setting aside tribunal's order.Analysis:1. The appellant, a construction firm, faced demands for unpaid service tax on various projects. Despite seeking more time due to financial hardship, the tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit orders.2. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the tribunal's dismissal, citing financial hardship, legal precedents, and prior court decisions on service tax liability pre-amendment.3. The High Court found the appellant belatedly complied with the pre-deposit order, emphasizing the construction industry's financial crisis. The court noted the compliance safeguarded revenue interests, directing the tribunal to decide the appeals on merits.4. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the court highlighted the need to balance undue hardship and revenue protection in pre-deposit orders under Section 35-F of the Act.5. The court stressed the importance of proving undue hardship and imposing suitable conditions to safeguard revenue interests when considering pre-deposit waivers.6. Consequently, the court set aside the tribunal's dismissal, restoring the appeals for consideration on merits without expressing an opinion on the substantial legal questions raised.7. The appeals were ordered accordingly with no costs, and connected petitions were closed.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, focusing on the appellant's financial hardship plea, legal precedents, compliance with pre-deposit orders, and the court's decision to restore the appeals for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
