<?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 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250668</link>
    <description>A show-cause notice issued under the unamended section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not validly sustain recovery of service tax from a recipient of goods transport agency services for a period covered by section 71A, because the latter provision required self-assessment and filing of a one-time return by such persons. Where the notice was not issued under the amended post-10 September 2004 framework, the tax demand was not maintainable. As the underlying tax demand failed, the consequential levy of interest and penalty also fell. The resulting demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable, and the enhancement of penalty was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250668</link>
      <description>A show-cause notice issued under the unamended section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not validly sustain recovery of service tax from a recipient of goods transport agency services for a period covered by section 71A, because the latter provision required self-assessment and filing of a one-time return by such persons. Where the notice was not issued under the amended post-10 September 2004 framework, the tax demand was not maintainable. As the underlying tax demand failed, the consequential levy of interest and penalty also fell. The resulting demand, interest and penalty were held unsustainable, and the enhancement of penalty was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>