<?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>Appellant penalized u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994, for failing to remit service tax, showing mala fide intent.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=47213</link>
    <description>Penalty u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 - appellant had correctly advised not to challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax though the parameters/conditions for imposing equivalent penalty u/s 78 is same - appellant after having recovered the service tax from its customer had not paid over the amount to the State clearly point to mala fide conduct - penalty upheld</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:49:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:49:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant penalized u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994, for failing to remit service tax, showing mala fide intent.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=47213</link>
      <description>Penalty u/s 78 of the FA, 1994 - appellant had correctly advised not to challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax though the parameters/conditions for imposing equivalent penalty u/s 78 is same - appellant after having recovered the service tax from its customer had not paid over the amount to the State clearly point to mala fide conduct - penalty upheld</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:49:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=47213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>