<?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>2017 (3) TMI 246 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339743</link>
    <description>Prolonged non-payment of service tax, coupled with late registration and delayed compliance, supported the conclusion that the default was not merely inadvertent but reflected intent to evade tax. The assessee had remained unregistered for nearly two years while supplying manpower services, registered only after a departmental visit, and cleared dues after substantial delay extending up to 36 months. Although invoices and the purchase order separately indicated service tax and the recipient later took credit, those facts did not excuse the sustained failure to discharge liability in time. On those facts, the penalties were sustained and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:40:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 246 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339743</link>
      <description>Prolonged non-payment of service tax, coupled with late registration and delayed compliance, supported the conclusion that the default was not merely inadvertent but reflected intent to evade tax. The assessee had remained unregistered for nearly two years while supplying manpower services, registered only after a departmental visit, and cleared dues after substantial delay extending up to 36 months. Although invoices and the purchase order separately indicated service tax and the recipient later took credit, those facts did not excuse the sustained failure to discharge liability in time. On those facts, the penalties were sustained and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>