Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜§š—³š—® – š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶: š—œš—»š˜š—²š—æš—²š˜€š˜ š—¼š—» š—½š—æš—²-š—±š—²š—½š—¼š˜€š—¶š˜ š—®š˜€ š—½š—²š—æ š—¦š—²š—°š˜š—¶š—¼š—» šŸÆšŸ±š—™š—™ @ šŸ­šŸ®% šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Interest on pre-deposit should be granted at 12% per annum as per Section 35FF from the date of deposit till the date of refund."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s. Premium Real Estate Developers š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the interest on the pre-deposit made by the appellant is to be calculated as per the provisions of Section 35FF and at what rate. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant contested the 6% interest on pre-deposit, seeking 12%, after the service tax demand was set aside.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that interest on a pre-deposit should be granted at 12% per annum, as per Section 35FF, from the date of deposit to the date of refund. It directed the Adjudicating Authority to grant differential interest, setting aside the previous order of 6%. The appeal was allowed.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. Premium Real Estate Developers vs. Commissioner of Service Tax – Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 14 November 2022 šŸ“œ The ruling ensures that the appellant receives interest on pre-deposit at the correct rate of 12% as per Section 35FF of the Finance Act, 1994.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own