<?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>Penalty Imposed u/s 78: Lack of Mens Rea Not Proven Due to Non-Cooperation and Missing Records in Service Tax Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40118</link>
    <description>Penalty u/s 78 - absence of mens rea or not? - Had the appellant acted under bonafide belief, then they ought to have cooperated in the investigation. But it has come on record that they did not corporate with the department nor produced the record for quantification of service tax liability - demand confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:40:56 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:40:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty Imposed u/s 78: Lack of Mens Rea Not Proven Due to Non-Cooperation and Missing Records in Service Tax Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40118</link>
      <description>Penalty u/s 78 - absence of mens rea or not? - Had the appellant acted under bonafide belief, then they ought to have cooperated in the investigation. But it has come on record that they did not corporate with the department nor produced the record for quantification of service tax liability - demand confirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:40:56 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>