9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impugned Stay Orders passed ex parte, Adjournment requests not produced, Payment of taxes and interests before show cause notices, Liability for penalties under Section 77. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issues raised by the Appellants regarding the impugned Stay Orders passed ex parte. The Appellant's Advocate argued that adjournment requests were filed but not presented before the Bench, leading to a misunderstanding. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the Appellants had paid taxes, interests, and penalties under Section 77 before the issuance of show cause notices, indicating a lack of liability for penalties. The Judge considered the arguments presented by both sides, including the contentions of the learned D.R. The D.R. emphasized that the law mandates tax payment by a specified date, and failure to comply should result in penalties. The Judge acknowledged the lenient view previously taken by the Bench and the requirement for timely tax payments without excuses, even if paid before the issuance of show cause notices. Upon evaluating the Modification Applications and the Appellants' pleas, the Judge found no clear case for complete waiver of penalties. However, in light of the Appellants' submissions, the Judge modified the directions. The Appellants were instructed to predeposit 10% of the penalty amounts within two weeks, with a compliance report due on a specified date. Compliance with this directive would result in the waiver of the remaining penalty amounts during the pendency of the Appeals, providing a partial relief to the Appellants. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the concerns raised by the Appellants regarding the Stay Orders, tax payments, and penalties under Section 77. The decision balanced the need for penalty imposition with the Appellants' submissions, ultimately resulting in a modified directive for partial penalty predeposit and waiver, subject to compliance within the specified timeframe.
|
