<?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>2009 (2) TMI 44 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32802</link>
    <description>Retrospective validating legislation imposed enforceable service tax liability on recipients of goods transport operator and clearing and forwarding services for the relevant past period, and tax paid under the special self-assessment mechanism was not refundable merely because no show cause notice was issued under the ordinary recovery provisions. The earlier contrary position was distinguished as arising under a different legal regime. The prescribed special return had to be filed within the stipulated period after the validating amendment, and belated filing attracted statutory interest. Refund claims therefore failed and the interest demands were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 44 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32802</link>
      <description>Retrospective validating legislation imposed enforceable service tax liability on recipients of goods transport operator and clearing and forwarding services for the relevant past period, and tax paid under the special self-assessment mechanism was not refundable merely because no show cause notice was issued under the ordinary recovery provisions. The earlier contrary position was distinguished as arising under a different legal regime. The prescribed special return had to be filed within the stipulated period after the validating amendment, and belated filing attracted statutory interest. Refund claims therefore failed and the interest demands were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>