https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734 Interest on a penalty under the 2011 Regulations could not be levied retrospectively without prior service of a valid demand notice in Form I. The statutory scheme was sequential and mandatory: Regulation 3 requires service of the demand notice after the penalty period, Regulation 3(2) makes the compliance period run from that service, and Regulation 5 makes interest dependent on non-payment within the time specified in the notice. As no Form I notice had been served before interest was imposed, no statutory default arose. The levy was therefore held to be without jurisdiction, and restitution could not be used to bypass the prescribed procedure. Strict construction applied because the levy was penal in nature. en-us Sat, 01 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734 Interest on a penalty under the 2011 Regulations could not be levied retrospectively without prior service of a valid demand notice in Form I. The statutory scheme was sequential and mandatory: Regulation 3 requires service of the demand notice after the penalty period, Regulation 3(2) makes the compliance period run from that service, and Regulation 5 makes interest dependent on non-payment within the time specified in the notice. As no Form I notice had been served before interest was imposed, no statutory default arose. The levy was therefore held to be without jurisdiction, and restitution could not be used to bypass the prescribed procedure. Strict construction applied because the levy was penal in nature. Case-Laws Law of Competition Sat, 01 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780734