<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1054 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171219</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in a Tax Appeal case filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Commissionerate, regarding the recovery of service tax for goods transport operator service. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. The Court emphasized that the demand of service tax from the respondent was time-barred and that the statutory provisions could not be retrospectively applied until substituted. The Court aligned with its previous judgments and found no fault on the respondent&#039;s part regarding non-compliance due to statutory ambiguity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1054 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171219</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision in a Tax Appeal case filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Commissionerate, regarding the recovery of service tax for goods transport operator service. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. The Court emphasized that the demand of service tax from the respondent was time-barred and that the statutory provisions could not be retrospectively applied until substituted. The Court aligned with its previous judgments and found no fault on the respondent&#039;s part regarding non-compliance due to statutory ambiguity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>