https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354903 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing penalties imposed on the appellant for non-registration under Section 77. The appellant, a proprietorship providing services to a bank, lacked understanding of tax provisions and relied on the bank for payment calculations. The Tribunal noted the appellant's non-compliance was not deliberate evasion, as most turnover fell below the taxable limit. Penalties under Section 78 were set aside, and the penalty under Section 77 was reduced to Rs. 5,000, emphasizing the importance of tax compliance and considering turnover thresholds in determining liabilities. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 08:20:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354903 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing penalties imposed on the appellant for non-registration under Section 77. The appellant, a proprietorship providing services to a bank, lacked understanding of tax provisions and relied on the bank for payment calculations. The Tribunal noted the appellant's non-compliance was not deliberate evasion, as most turnover fell below the taxable limit. Penalties under Section 78 were set aside, and the penalty under Section 77 was reduced to Rs. 5,000, emphasizing the importance of tax compliance and considering turnover thresholds in determining liabilities. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354903