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 upholds case, deems challenge belated, finds penalty unwarranted. Relief granted on penalty amount.</h1> <h3>M/s. Popular Maruthi Painting Works Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II)</h3> M/s. Popular Maruthi Painting Works Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II) - ... Issues:Challenge to order in appeal by Commissioner (Appeals II) dated 28.09.2018 in relation to service tax payment for the financial year 2007-08.Analysis:The appellant contested a show cause notice alleging non-payment of service tax in 2007-08 despite a turnover of Rs. 52,00,000. The appellant argued they believed service tax was due only post-registration and had been paying since March 2008. The Original Authority confirmed the tax demand, interest, and penalties. The Appellate Authority partially set aside the order, remanding for fresh computation. The Adjudicating Authority later determined a reduced tax liability of Rs. 1,58,803, which the appellant paid. The Revenue appealed this decision, not on merits but on a technical calculation error. The Appellate Authority upheld the tax demand and penalty. The appellant filed a writ petition, challenging the defective show cause notice and penalty imposition.The High Court noted the appellant's acceptance of the Adjudicating Authority's order and payment of the determined tax and penalty. The Court found the plea challenging the show cause notice belated, given the appellant's participation in subsequent proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellant's failure to challenge the original order and acceptance of the subsequent decisions precluded raising new objections. The Court deemed the writ petition untenable, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with the penalty payment within the prescribed time limit under Section 78.The Court concluded that the penalty demand was unwarranted, and while the appellant sought relief on various grounds, the Court restricted relief solely to the penalty amount of Rs. 4,77,542. The Court upheld the remaining aspects of the order in appeal. The writ appeal was allowed only to the extent of penalty deletion, with no costs awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
