TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal on service valuation; legal infirmities cited</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the Commissioner's order on the valuation of taxable services. Legal infirmities in the ... Mandap keeper – Commissioner noticed that Adjudication order suffers from legal infirmity like non recording of declaration etc. - Commissioner found that there was no corroborative evidence for raising demand, the SCN was defective & that the kachhi parchi shall not be basis to compute the value of taxable service - It is settled law that the finding of appellate authority does not call for interference without evidence to contrary - Revenue’s appeal has become fatal so it is dismissed Issues: Valuation of taxable service, legal infirmities in adjudication, definition of mandap keeper, appeal by RevenueValuation of taxable service:The matter involved in the judgment pertains to the valuation of taxable services. The learned Commissioner found legal infirmities in the order of adjudication, such as non-recording of client declarations and the absence of summonses to examine clients. The Commissioner also noted that the show cause notice was defective due to the adoption of inadmissible evidence in the proceedings. Despite the discussion on the average fair value of the taxable service, it was concluded that the kachhi parchi should not be the basis for computing the value. The judgment emphasized that in the absence of impeachable evidence and with the observations made by the Commissioner, the issue was not solely a matter of valuation, as the basis of the show cause notice was deemed ill-founded.Legal infirmities in adjudication:The judgment highlighted various legal infirmities in the adjudication process. It was noted that the order of adjudication suffered from issues such as the non-recording of client declarations, lack of summonses to examine clients, and the use of inadmissible evidence in the proceedings. The learned Commissioner found that there was no corroborative evidence to support the demand raised and deemed the show cause notice defective. These legal infirmities were crucial in determining the validity of the adjudication process and influenced the final decision of the Tribunal.Definition of mandap keeper:One of the issues raised was the definition of a mandap keeper, which the learned DR argued was not adequately tested by the Commissioner. However, it was emphasized that without substantial evidence to the contrary, the finding of the appellate authority should not be reversed. The judgment highlighted the principle that findings of the appellate authority, while subject to scrutiny, should not be interfered with without evidence of perversity. The definition of a mandap keeper was a point of contention, but the lack of compelling evidence led to the affirmation of the appellate authority's decision.Appeal by Revenue:The appeal in question was made by the Revenue, challenging the order passed by the learned Commissioner. After extensive arguments from both sides, the Tribunal reiterated the view that in the absence of evidence to overturn the Commissioner's order, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and the lack of grounds to disturb the decision of the Commissioner, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
