Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled, at the stay stage, to waiver of dues and stay of recovery on the basis that it had made out a prima facie case for availing the more beneficial notification.
Analysis: The services of mandap keepers were taxable and the relevant notification for such services was issued in that context. The later condition restricting simultaneous benefit of the two notifications was introduced only from 10.09.2004. Since the applicant billed separately for food and drinks, it was not prima facie shown to satisfy all conditions of the specific notification for mandap keeper services. The order also indicated that the conditions for the other notification were not disputed as being satisfied. On that basis, a prima facie case existed for interim relief.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to waiver of dues and stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.
Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted in favour of the assessee and recovery of the demanded amount was stayed until the appeal is decided.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee prima facie satisfies the conditions for one exemption notification and the specific notification conditions are not clearly met, interim waiver and stay may be granted pending appeal.