Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Mismatch between Income tax return and Service tax

AVNISH KHAN

A notice has been issued by the CGST department for FY 2015-16 stating there is a mismatch between the income tax return and service tax.

In our case we aren't registered with service tax department .

Can the notice is being challenged stating the notice has been issued beyond the limitation period of 18 months.

Since it is not a case of fraud or suppression may be a case of ignorance of the law.

Your response is highly appreciated.

Thanks Avnish Khan

CGST Notice Challenged for Late Issuance; Burden of Proof on Department; Intent to Evade Tax Required for Extension A discussion on a forum addresses a notice from the CGST department regarding a mismatch between income tax returns and service tax for FY 2015-16. The initiator of the query is not registered with the service tax department and questions the validity of the notice due to its issuance beyond the 18-month limitation period. Respondents suggest challenging the notice, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the department. Various case laws and board circulars are cited, highlighting the necessity of intent to evade tax for invoking an extended period. The discussion also covers scenarios involving service tax liabilities and potential penalties. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues