<?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 298 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30977</link>
    <description>Service tax could not be recovered from the recipient of goods transport operator service for a period when the statute did not impose such liability on that class of persons. Section 71A, which introduced a return-filing obligation, did not retrospectively expand liability under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice and revisional demand were therefore not maintainable, and the related interest demand under section 75 also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 298 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30977</link>
      <description>Service tax could not be recovered from the recipient of goods transport operator service for a period when the statute did not impose such liability on that class of persons. Section 71A, which introduced a return-filing obligation, did not retrospectively expand liability under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice and revisional demand were therefore not maintainable, and the related interest demand under section 75 also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>