<?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 (5) TMI 273 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33544</link>
    <description>Interest on belated service tax payment under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory once tax is paid late, and it cannot be cancelled on the mistaken footing that the demand is penal where the original authority had already waived penalty and confined recovery to interest. The Tribunal proceeded on an incorrect assumption in treating the demand as penalty, so its cancellation of the interest demand was unsustainable. The interest liability was therefore restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 273 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33544</link>
      <description>Interest on belated service tax payment under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory once tax is paid late, and it cannot be cancelled on the mistaken footing that the demand is penal where the original authority had already waived penalty and confined recovery to interest. The Tribunal proceeded on an incorrect assumption in treating the demand as penalty, so its cancellation of the interest demand was unsustainable. The interest liability was therefore restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>