https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276236 Service-tax penalty analysis distinguishes delayed payment from suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Payment made immediately after registration for the April-December 2005 period did not warrant penalty, while delayed payment for January-March 2005 supported a reduced penalty for failure to pay service tax and a nominal penalty for non-compliance. In the absence of material establishing intentional suppression, the penalty for suppression and evasion could not be sustained. The discussion therefore treats proof of intent as necessary for the more serious suppression-based penalty, while allowing proportionate penalties for established payment delay and procedural default. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2018 17:27:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276236 Service-tax penalty analysis distinguishes delayed payment from suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Payment made immediately after registration for the April-December 2005 period did not warrant penalty, while delayed payment for January-March 2005 supported a reduced penalty for failure to pay service tax and a nominal penalty for non-compliance. In the absence of material establishing intentional suppression, the penalty for suppression and evasion could not be sustained. The discussion therefore treats proof of intent as necessary for the more serious suppression-based penalty, while allowing proportionate penalties for established payment delay and procedural default. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276236