TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Taxpayer Granted Right to Challenge Service Tax Demand Order with Merit-Based Review Within 30-Day Window</h1> <h3>Hotel Shri Swarna's Palace represented by its Proprietor S. Pramila Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy</h3> The HC examined a service tax demand case involving penalties and interest under the Finance Act, 1994. After considering arguments, the court granted the ... Condonation of delay of 120 days in filing appeal - It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the order was passed, the petitioner had given the papers to the Chartered Accountant, who failed to prefer an appeal in time - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already paid the disputed tax on 14.03.2024. There are no impediment in giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within such time, the Appellate Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation. The release of the vehicle is subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceeding. The writ petition is disposed off. Issues:The judgment involves a challenge to an Order in Original regarding service tax demand, interest, and penalties u/s various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The main issue is the challenge to the impugned order and the subsequent appeal process.Service Tax Demand and Penalties:The respondent confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,92,229/- from the petitioner for service tax allegedly due for the period between April 2016 and June 2017 u/s proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, interest u/s Section 75 and penalties u/s Section 78(1), Section 77(1)(c), and Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the petitioner. The impugned order specified the amounts and penalties to be paid within a specified time frame.Appeal and Time Limit:The petitioner, after the order, submitted papers to a Chartered Accountant who failed to file an appeal in time. The petitioner paid the disputed tax on a specific date, excluding penalties and interest. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable beyond the statutory appeal period, citing a Supreme Court decision. The respondent contended that the appeal should have been filed within the statutory time frame, and as the writ petition was filed beyond 120 days, it should be dismissed.Judgment and Disposal:The Court considered arguments from both sides and noted that the petitioner had paid the disputed tax. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to decide the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation. The release of the vehicle was made subject to the final outcome of confiscation proceedings. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
