<?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 469 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339966</link>
    <description>Delayed electronic filing of ST-3 returns was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a deliberate default where the returns had been prepared in the system but not finally submitted. The tribunal noted the initial difficulties in electronic filing and accepted that the delay was unintentional. On that basis, late fee and penalty were held unjustified and the demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 06:53:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 469 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339966</link>
      <description>Delayed electronic filing of ST-3 returns was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a deliberate default where the returns had been prepared in the system but not finally submitted. The tribunal noted the initial difficulties in electronic filing and accepted that the delay was unintentional. On that basis, late fee and penalty were held unjustified and the demand was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>