Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?
Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
'Late Fee' under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, read with Section 70 of the Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 was mandatory (except where the gross amount of service tax payable is nil).
So, Dept. can directly resort to recovering such an amount using any of the powers of Section 87. However, one needs to check the limitation act provisions and the applicability if Dept. indeed resorts directly Section 87.
If Dept. indeed issued SCN to demand such late fee, such demand needs to be issued in a 'reasonable period'.
As per Supreme Court, when under any law, there is no time limit prescribed to issue any such demand-notice, same needs to be issued in a reasonable time. And one can argue that the limitation period (u/s 73) can be taken as a 'reasonable period' to issue SCN demanding subject late fee (as both type of demands are under very same law)
These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.