<?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 (7) TMI 99 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34716</link>
    <description>A registered service provider suppressed the full extent of taxable services and receipts, and the undisclosed activity surfaced only on departmental inspection. On these facts, the Tribunal held that material suppression with intent to evade tax was established, so penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable. The assessee&#039;s plea of accident and treatment was not accepted as a proved reasonable cause, so relief under Section 80 was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 13:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 99 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34716</link>
      <description>A registered service provider suppressed the full extent of taxable services and receipts, and the undisclosed activity surfaced only on departmental inspection. On these facts, the Tribunal held that material suppression with intent to evade tax was established, so penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable. The assessee&#039;s plea of accident and treatment was not accepted as a proved reasonable cause, so relief under Section 80 was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>