Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

3 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—²š˜€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—œš—ŗš—ŗš˜‚š—»š—¶š˜š˜† š˜‚š—»š—±š—²š—æ š—¦š—²š—°š˜š—¶š—¼š—» šŸ“šŸ¬ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "As the amount of Service tax has already been paid under reverse charge and appropriated against the demand made to the Appellant, the Appellant is entitled to immunity from imposing penalty. Appeal allowed."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—”š—½š—½š—²š—¹š—¹š—®š—»š˜: M/s Jagati Cokes Private Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Non-payment of Service tax under reverse charge mechanism was later discharged; penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were contested.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal held that since Service tax was paid and appropriated, the appellant qualified for immunity from penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were set aside, while the dropped penalty under Section 76 was upheld, citing reasonable cause for non-compliance.

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 Jagati Cokes Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 28 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling underscores that when Service tax is paid and appropriated, immunity from penalty can be availed under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own