<?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>2015 (1) TMI 224 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255025</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the registration fee collected by the respondent forms part of the taxable service value subject to Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of the registration fee in ST-3 returns constituted suppression with intent to evade tax, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the Order-in-Original.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:18:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 224 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255025</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the registration fee collected by the respondent forms part of the taxable service value subject to Service Tax. The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of the registration fee in ST-3 returns constituted suppression with intent to evade tax, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of the Order-in-Original.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>