<?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>2023 (7) TMI 1612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464902</link>
    <description>Delayed payment charges levied for non-payment within the stipulated time were treated as penal in nature and, under the circular dated 03.08.2011, were not includable in the taxable value for service tax. Because that clarification pre-dated the refund claim, the Revenue&#039;s objection lost force, and the amount had already been refunded on 30.12.2021. On that basis, no ground was found to interfere with the earlier order in review, and the review petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:03:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1612 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464902</link>
      <description>Delayed payment charges levied for non-payment within the stipulated time were treated as penal in nature and, under the circular dated 03.08.2011, were not includable in the taxable value for service tax. Because that clarification pre-dated the refund claim, the Revenue&#039;s objection lost force, and the amount had already been refunded on 30.12.2021. On that basis, no ground was found to interfere with the earlier order in review, and the review petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>