<?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>2014 (4) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247072</link>
    <description>Retrospective validation of service tax on goods transport operator service recipients was analysed against the return-filing and recovery machinery under the Finance Act, 1994. The commentary states that, even after the Finance Acts of 2000 and 2003, proceedings under section 73 could not be sustained against recipients treated as not required to file returns under section 70 on the basis adopted by the Revenue. It also notes that demands for the earlier period were time-barred because the adjudicating authority had found no suppression or misstatement, so the extended limitation period was unavailable despite later retrospective amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1041 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247072</link>
      <description>Retrospective validation of service tax on goods transport operator service recipients was analysed against the return-filing and recovery machinery under the Finance Act, 1994. The commentary states that, even after the Finance Acts of 2000 and 2003, proceedings under section 73 could not be sustained against recipients treated as not required to file returns under section 70 on the basis adopted by the Revenue. It also notes that demands for the earlier period were time-barred because the adjudicating authority had found no suppression or misstatement, so the extended limitation period was unavailable despite later retrospective amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>