<?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>2018 (9) TMI 1380 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367644</link>
    <description>Bona fide disclosure of taxable value in ST-3 returns defeated any allegation of suppression, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the service tax demand. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period and remanded for re-quantification. On the penalty issue, the same absence of mala fide conduct meant the foundation for penal action did not survive, so the penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1380 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367644</link>
      <description>Bona fide disclosure of taxable value in ST-3 returns defeated any allegation of suppression, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for the service tax demand. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period and remanded for re-quantification. On the penalty issue, the same absence of mala fide conduct meant the foundation for penal action did not survive, so the penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>