<?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 896 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255697</link>
    <description>Prior payment of service tax before issuance of the show-cause notice did not, by itself, extinguish penalty liability under the penal provisions. The Karnataka HC noted that the assessee had paid the tax belatedly, but the dispute remained confined to penalties; the claim of bona fide mistake was rejected on the facts, and no legal exoneration was established. The principle applied was that payment of the tax amount, whether made before or after notice, does not remove statutory penalty exposure where the conditions for levy are otherwise satisfied. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed, and the impugned order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 896 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255697</link>
      <description>Prior payment of service tax before issuance of the show-cause notice did not, by itself, extinguish penalty liability under the penal provisions. The Karnataka HC noted that the assessee had paid the tax belatedly, but the dispute remained confined to penalties; the claim of bona fide mistake was rejected on the facts, and no legal exoneration was established. The principle applied was that payment of the tax amount, whether made before or after notice, does not remove statutory penalty exposure where the conditions for levy are otherwise satisfied. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed, and the impugned order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>