<?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>2005 (11) TMI 472 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172496</link>
    <description>Delayed registration does not extinguish service tax liability where the levy has already become applicable to the service provider, and arrears may be recovered from the date the tax net applies. The Finance Act framework places the primary obligation on the service provider to register, assess, collect and remit service tax, and the absence of an express statutory time bar does not prevent collection of unpaid dues once registration is obtained. Section 73 was noted as a recovery mechanism for short-paid or unpaid tax, but it did not displace the provider&#039;s duty to collect and deposit the tax in the first instance. The demand for arrears was upheld and the challenge to retrospective recovery failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 472 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172496</link>
      <description>Delayed registration does not extinguish service tax liability where the levy has already become applicable to the service provider, and arrears may be recovered from the date the tax net applies. The Finance Act framework places the primary obligation on the service provider to register, assess, collect and remit service tax, and the absence of an express statutory time bar does not prevent collection of unpaid dues once registration is obtained. Section 73 was noted as a recovery mechanism for short-paid or unpaid tax, but it did not displace the provider&#039;s duty to collect and deposit the tax in the first instance. The demand for arrears was upheld and the challenge to retrospective recovery failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>