<?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>2026 (9) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798055</link>
    <description>Delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax before issuance of a show-cause notice constitutes delayed payment, not failure to pay under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979. Delays in deposit and return filing fall under Section 38(4) and the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, which permit condonation on sufficient cause. Notice-and-hearing requirements preserve discretion to decline penalty despite mandatory wording or a prescribed minimum. Penalty was therefore unwarranted for explained delays. The prohibition against reformatio in peius also prevents an appellant from facing an enhanced penalty solely for pursuing an appellate remedy. The penalties and consequential demands were invalid, requiring refund and discharge of the bank guarantee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:30:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798055</link>
      <description>Delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax before issuance of a show-cause notice constitutes delayed payment, not failure to pay under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979. Delays in deposit and return filing fall under Section 38(4) and the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, which permit condonation on sufficient cause. Notice-and-hearing requirements preserve discretion to decline penalty despite mandatory wording or a prescribed minimum. Penalty was therefore unwarranted for explained delays. The prohibition against reformatio in peius also prevents an appellant from facing an enhanced penalty solely for pursuing an appellate remedy. The penalties and consequential demands were invalid, requiring refund and discharge of the bank guarantee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>