<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (12) TMI 345 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Department of Revenue - Revis</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97432</link>
    <description>The foreign travel tax framework required carriers to deposit collected tax within thirty days, provided interest for delayed payment, and authorised penalty after observance of natural justice for non-payment within the prescribed time. On that construction, delay in remitting collected tax attracted penal consequences, and the penalty for delayed payment was upheld. Rule 10A of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 also specifically prescribed penalty for delayed submission of returns within stated monetary limits, so the penalty for late filing of returns was likewise upheld. The revision applications therefore failed because both penalties were held legally sustainable under the governing tax scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:51:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 345 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Department of Revenue - Revis</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97432</link>
      <description>The foreign travel tax framework required carriers to deposit collected tax within thirty days, provided interest for delayed payment, and authorised penalty after observance of natural justice for non-payment within the prescribed time. On that construction, delay in remitting collected tax attracted penal consequences, and the penalty for delayed payment was upheld. Rule 10A of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 also specifically prescribed penalty for delayed submission of returns within stated monetary limits, so the penalty for late filing of returns was likewise upheld. The revision applications therefore failed because both penalties were held legally sustainable under the governing tax scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>