Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

5 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—® š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—£š—²š—»š—®š—¹š˜š˜† š—³š—¼š—æ š——š—²š—¹š—®š˜†š—²š—± š—£š—®š˜†š—ŗš—²š—»š˜ š—¼š—³ š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Since the appellant made the delayed payment of service tax before the issuance of the show-cause notice, no penalty is justifiable."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Kanoi Textile Agency š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is justified? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant delayed payment of service tax on TDS but paid the amount before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The impugned order dropped reimbursement expenses but imposed a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that since the appellant paid the service tax before the show-cause notice was issued, no penalty under Section 78 was warranted. The payment was made promptly, and the penalty was therefore dropped. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s Kanoi Textile Agency vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Ranchi š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 23 March 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling clarifies that if the service tax is paid before the show-cause notice, no penalty can be imposed.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own