9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramesh Ranganathan) This writ petition is filed questioning the letter dated 03.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent demanding Rs. 1,98,183/- towards interest on the entire service tax dues, for the entire period, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner renders services towards Mandap Keeper Services. It is their case that, while they had registered themselves in the year 2001 and were regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir service tax dues as Rs. 3,77,150/- for the said tax period. While they paid 50% thereof i.e Rs. 1,88,575/- on 31.12.2013; they paid Rs. 1,66,260/-on 28.06.2014, and informed the respondents that, along with the sum of Rs. 22,135/- paid by them during the period November 2007 to March 2008, they had paid the entire service tax dues of Rs. 3,77,150/-. However, by the impugned letter dated 03.12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 furnishing clarifications to the VCES. Paragraph 8 thereof deals with a situation where a person has made part payment of his tax dues before the scheme was notified, and has made a declaration under the VCES for the remaining part of the tax dues, and the clarification sought was whether he would be entitled to the benefit of non-payment of interest/penalty, on the tax dues paid by him outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- prior to the introduction of the scheme. The clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would have enabled the respondents to levy interest and impose penalty only for the amount paid by the petitioner towards tax dues prior to enactment of the scheme. Their power to levy interest and impose penalty was, therefore, only on Rs. 22,135/- paid by the petitioner during November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and impose penalty on the amount paid by the petitioner during November 2007 to March 2008 (i.e for Rs. 22,135/-) in accordance with law. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner paid Rs. 3,54,785/-, the respondents are required to issue a certificate to the petitioner as having discharged their service tax liability to this extent. The respondents, after verifying receipt of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
