<?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>2010 (8) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763</link>
    <description>Delayed credit of collected foreign travel tax within the prescribed period constitutes non-payment for Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979, even where payment is made later. The provision mandates a minimum penalty for breach of a civil statutory obligation, independently of interest liability, and does not require proof of mens rea. A monetary ceiling on penalty jurisdiction in Rule 11 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 cannot restrict the statutory minimum because subordinate rules must yield to the parent enactment. Where remand restores show-cause notices for fresh consideration without limitation, fresh adjudication may impose an enhanced penalty consistent with Section 38(3).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 18:44:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763</link>
      <description>Delayed credit of collected foreign travel tax within the prescribed period constitutes non-payment for Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979, even where payment is made later. The provision mandates a minimum penalty for breach of a civil statutory obligation, independently of interest liability, and does not require proof of mens rea. A monetary ceiling on penalty jurisdiction in Rule 11 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 cannot restrict the statutory minimum because subordinate rules must yield to the parent enactment. Where remand restores show-cause notices for fresh consideration without limitation, fresh adjudication may impose an enhanced penalty consistent with Section 38(3).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>