Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rejects extended period for tax evasion, confirms demands for normal period.</h1> <h3>Dinesh Chandra Dubey, Ashok Maru and Azad Jain Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur (Raj.)</h3> Dinesh Chandra Dubey, Ashok Maru and Azad Jain Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur (Raj.) - 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 297 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on the commission received from M/s. Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (ACCSL) for providing 'Business Auxiliary Services'.2. Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notices was justified.3. Whether the appellants had a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax.4. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of cum-tax.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability to Pay Service Tax:The appellants were receiving commission from M/s. ACCSL for providing various services, including those of 'Consultants'. The Department observed that the appellants had not discharged their service tax liability on the commission received since the services became taxable post 01.07.2012. The show cause notices were issued for the recovery of service tax along with interest and penalties. The adjudicating authorities confirmed the demands except for some benefit of exemption for a particular period. The Tribunal acknowledged that the services in question were taxable based on the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Pagariya Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Aurangabad, which held that the provider of 'Business Auxiliary Services' is liable to pay the duty.2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:The show cause notices were issued invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows recovery beyond the normal period of 30 months up to 5 years in cases of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Chandigarh-I and Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. Collector of C.Ex., Bombay, which clarified that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to evade duty. The Tribunal concluded that the burden is on the Revenue to prove suppression of fact, and an incorrect statement cannot be equated with a willful misstatement.3. Bona Fide Belief:The appellants argued that there was confusion about the taxability of the services provided, and they were under the bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable. They cited the example of LIC agents who were also not paying service tax on commissions received. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not charged service tax from M/s. ACCSL and had disclosed the entire commission in their income tax returns. This indicated a bona fide belief rather than an intent to evade tax. The Tribunal referred to the case of Omega Financial Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Cochin, where it was held that a bona fide belief can be a reasonable cause for failure to discharge tax liability, and penalties should not be imposed in such cases.4. Cum-Tax Benefit:The appellants also prayed for the cum-tax benefit to be extended to them. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the judgment, but the setting aside of demands for the extended period implicitly suggests that any recalculations for the normal period would consider the applicable benefits, including cum-tax.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the department as there was no mala fide intent on the part of the appellants to evade payment of service tax. The orders confirming the demand for the extended period were set aside. However, any demand for the normal period in the respective appeals was confirmed. The appeals were allowed with respect to demands pertaining to the extended period of the respective show cause notices.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found