9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an For the Respondent : Mr. R. Nandhakumar Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned Order in Original No.37/2022- ST dated 10.05.2023 bearing Ref.C.No.IV/19/263/2021-ST-Adjn. 2. By the aforesaid order, the respondent has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,92,229/- from the petitioner being the service tax payable by the petitioner allegedly due for the period between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Trichy under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; and iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 3,92,229/- on M/s Hotel Swarna's Palace, under the provisions of section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. iv) M/s Hotel Swarna's Palace, are informed that the penalty payable under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 shall be 25% of the Service Tax amount determined as in Sl. No.(i) above, if the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had given the papers to the Chartered Accountant, who failed to prefer an appeal in time. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid the disputed tax on 14.03.2024 other than the penalty and the interest leviable. It is submitted that the impugned order is without merits and is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would oppose to the prayer i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the delay. It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed beyond 120 days and therefore is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 6. The petitioner has already paid the disputed tax on 14.03.2024. I see no impediment in giving liberty to the petitioner to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
