<?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>The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of retroactive amendments validating the imposition of service tax on recipients of services from Goods Transport Operators and Clearing and Forwarding agents. The Tribunal found the service tax paid by the recipient company to be valid. The Tribunal rejected the application of the doctrine of res judicata in revenue matters and upheld the retrospective amendments, holding the recipient liable for interest on late payment of service tax. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and rejected the recipient&#039;s appeals, confirming the validity of the service tax payment and the liability for interest on late payments.</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>The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of retroactive amendments validating the imposition of service tax on recipients of services from Goods Transport Operators and Clearing and Forwarding agents. The Tribunal found the service tax paid by the recipient company to be valid. The Tribunal rejected the application of the doctrine of res judicata in revenue matters and upheld the retrospective amendments, holding the recipient liable for interest on late payment of service tax. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and rejected the recipient&#039;s appeals, confirming the validity of the service tax payment and the liability for interest on late payments.</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>