<?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 (3) TMI 134 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34640</link>
    <description>Service tax penalty and interest remained leviable where taxable services had been provided from 1 July 2003 but registration was obtained only later, and the past transactions were not disclosed to the department until pursued by it. Payment of tax and interest during the pendency of proceedings was not treated as a voluntary discharge before notice, because a substantial part of the demand was paid only during adjudication. In the absence of prompt disclosure and any established reasonable cause or bona fide basis for waiver, the penal provisions under the service tax law were held applicable and the plea for penalty relief was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 134 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34640</link>
      <description>Service tax penalty and interest remained leviable where taxable services had been provided from 1 July 2003 but registration was obtained only later, and the past transactions were not disclosed to the department until pursued by it. Payment of tax and interest during the pendency of proceedings was not treated as a voluntary discharge before notice, because a substantial part of the demand was paid only during adjudication. In the absence of prompt disclosure and any established reasonable cause or bona fide basis for waiver, the penal provisions under the service tax law were held applicable and the plea for penalty relief was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>