<?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 (6) TMI 84 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260159</link>
    <description>Section 35F of the Central Excise Act permits waiver of pre-deposit only on a showing of undue hardship, while Section 35G confines High Court interference to substantial questions of law. On the facts, the authorities had found a prima facie tax liability for renting of immovable property, the claimed bifurcation of rent was not supported by the record, and waiver had already been granted for interest and penalties with deposit directed only for the service tax component. In that setting, no substantial question of law arose from the pre-deposit order, and the discretionary direction did not warrant interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 84 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260159</link>
      <description>Section 35F of the Central Excise Act permits waiver of pre-deposit only on a showing of undue hardship, while Section 35G confines High Court interference to substantial questions of law. On the facts, the authorities had found a prima facie tax liability for renting of immovable property, the claimed bifurcation of rent was not supported by the record, and waiver had already been granted for interest and penalties with deposit directed only for the service tax component. In that setting, no substantial question of law arose from the pre-deposit order, and the discretionary direction did not warrant interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>