<?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>2008 (2) TMI 238 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30336</link>
    <description>Goods transport service tax liability for the relevant period could not be recovered where the show cause notice was issued under a recovery provision that did not validly cover the class of persons concerned on that date. The dispute concerned the interaction between the return-filing obligation under Section 71A and Rule 7A and the later substitution of Section 73. Following the earlier view that such notices were not maintainable under Section 73 as it then stood, and noting that view had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the demand for service tax and interest was treated as unsustainable and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 238 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30336</link>
      <description>Goods transport service tax liability for the relevant period could not be recovered where the show cause notice was issued under a recovery provision that did not validly cover the class of persons concerned on that date. The dispute concerned the interaction between the return-filing obligation under Section 71A and Rule 7A and the later substitution of Section 73. Following the earlier view that such notices were not maintainable under Section 73 as it then stood, and noting that view had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the demand for service tax and interest was treated as unsustainable and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>