<?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>1998 (5) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to file an earlier-quarter service tax return was treated as unwarranted where the service tax regime was newly introduced, the taxpayer was not actively conducting business during the relevant period, and initial registration and filing difficulties existed. The applicable framework contemplated regularisation of past default, and departmental officers could have advised return filing before initiating penal action. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 2 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to file an earlier-quarter service tax return was treated as unwarranted where the service tax regime was newly introduced, the taxpayer was not actively conducting business during the relevant period, and initial registration and filing difficulties existed. The applicable framework contemplated regularisation of past default, and departmental officers could have advised return filing before initiating penal action. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>