Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

2 months ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—–š—µš—²š—»š—»š—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—£š—²š—»š—®š—¹š˜š—¶š—²š˜€ š—³š—¼š—æ š—§š—®š˜…š—²š˜€ š—¼š—» š—Ÿš—®š—»š—± š—®š—»š—± š—•š˜‚š—¶š—¹š—±š—¶š—»š—“ š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ The Tribunal held: "Given the interpretational nature of land and building tax issues, the appellant qualifies for penalty waiver."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Executive Officer, Karamadai Town Panchayat š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Are the imposition of penalty and late fee valid? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant provided "Renting of Immovable Property Service" but did not pay service tax on time or file ST-3 returns.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that the dispute over "taxes on lands and buildings" is interpretational, granting the appellant sufficient grounds for delayed tax payment without intent to evade. Consequently, the appellant is eligible for a penalty waiver under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was allowed, waiving all penalties.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Executive Officer, Karamadai Town Panchayat vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 40948 of 2014 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 22 September 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling underscores that constitutional and interpretational tax disputes justify penalty waivers.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own