<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1269 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186885</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the order of the Central Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, directing M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores pending a Service Tax Appeal. The court found the petitioner to be in default of service tax payment, emphasizing that prior excess payments did not excuse the outstanding amount. The court also noted that the Tribunal had considered the petitioner&#039;s payment in its order. The petition was dismissed, underscoring that the petitioner&#039;s public sector status did not exempt it from tax obligations, and the deposit requirement was justified considering the total demand, penalty, and interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1269 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186885</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the order of the Central Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, directing M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to deposit Rs. 2.00 crores pending a Service Tax Appeal. The court found the petitioner to be in default of service tax payment, emphasizing that prior excess payments did not excuse the outstanding amount. The court also noted that the Tribunal had considered the petitioner&#039;s payment in its order. The petition was dismissed, underscoring that the petitioner&#039;s public sector status did not exempt it from tax obligations, and the deposit requirement was justified considering the total demand, penalty, and interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>