<?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>2007 (7) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2250</link>
    <description>Statutory penalty for delayed service tax payment and late return filing under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was restored because the assessee&#039;s explanation did not cover the entire default period. The labour unrest explanation was accepted only for part of the relevant period and was inapplicable to earlier months, leaving the default unsupported by a tenable cause. The original authority&#039;s factual finding that penalty at the statutory rate was warranted was affirmed by the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty without properly addressing those findings or applying a precedent that did not fit the facts. The penalty imposed by the original authority was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2250</link>
      <description>Statutory penalty for delayed service tax payment and late return filing under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was restored because the assessee&#039;s explanation did not cover the entire default period. The labour unrest explanation was accepted only for part of the relevant period and was inapplicable to earlier months, leaving the default unsupported by a tenable cause. The original authority&#039;s factual finding that penalty at the statutory rate was warranted was affirmed by the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty without properly addressing those findings or applying a precedent that did not fit the facts. The penalty imposed by the original authority was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>