9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 76 of the Act if penalty under Section 78 of the Act is imposed. In such circumstance, the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the illegality in the levy of penalty cannot be sustained. - Decided against the assessee. Adjustment of penalty already paid - Held that:- the amounts already paid have also been taken into account. Ext.P5 is an order issued, pursuant to the directions of this Court directing credit to be given to all payments effected by the petitioner. - credit of penalty already deposited to be given - decided in favor of assessee. Adjustment of penalty levied i.e. to be reduced to the extent amount of service tax has been deposited earlier - Held that:- Such amounts cannot be adjusted, since, pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the respective years in which assessment was taken up. The petitioner also has a contention that the penalty imposed being under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, cannot be sustained by virtue of the Proviso introduced to Section 78 of the Act by an amendment brought to the Act on 10.05.2008. Immediately, it has to be noticed that, the contentions substantially raised herein, were also raised in another proceeding before this Court itself, in an another Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. This Court by Ext.P4 specifically found that, the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act has been held to be permissible by two Division Benches of this Court. It is also trite that when the statute provides for a speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 78 of the Act, the amounts already paid have also been taken into account. Ext.P5 is an order issued, pursuant to the directions of this Court directing credit to be given to all payments effected by the petitioner. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 takes in Rs.3,44,304/- as the tax paid by the petitioner. The balance tax payable is computed at Rs.2,54,194/-. Hence, the computation of amounts cannot be faulted and definitely credit has been given to the payments made by the petitioner. 5. Next contention is with respect to the imposition of penalty on the amounts deposited by the petitioner. It is very evident that, the penalty has been imposed for assessments for the years 2005-06 to 2009-10. The payment of Rs.1,50,926/-referred to in Ext.P1 is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
