9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first respondent on merits. They are ready and willing to comply with the direction of payment of interest liability. They seek four months' time to pay the balance of interest liability - taking note of the fact that the additional amount of service tax as settled by the first respondent to the tune of ₹ 63,13,770/- and penalty to the tune of ₹ 1.80 lakhs have already been paid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to settle the interest liability in instalments was negatived. By the impugned order, the first respondent settled the case and directed the additional amount of service tax to the tune of ₹ 63,13,770/- to be paid. The interest liability was settled at ₹ 44,73,546/- and the Bench also imposed penalty of ₹ 1.80 lakhs on the petitioner. Subject to payment of the aforesaid three am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent took up the matter and settled the case by order dated 05.3.2018. 4. Even before the first respondent, the petitioner made an identical request as done before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. However, the first respondent was not inclined to accede to the request made by the petitioner on the ground that the Commissioner communicated the interest liability to the petitioner vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dditional investment in the new project, that the petitioner is also liable to pay interest due to the tune of ₹ 2.02 Crores to the Government, which is being paid in monthly instalments and that the petitioner suffered cash loss from operation to the tune of ₹ 89.29 Crores as per audited financials for the year 2016-17. 7. In my considered view, the petitioner has not challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
