Equivalent value attachment under money laundering law upheld where received funds were treated as proceeds of crime and prior-acquired property could...
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Renting services in the precincts of a religious place were considered for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and the exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the relevant Board circular. In valuation, the Tribunal held that where the Revenue does not show that service tax was separately collected, the gross consideration must be treated as cum-tax under Section 67(2), and the tax liability must be recomputed accordingly. On penalty and limitation, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade meant Section 78 penalty could not stand, and the demand could survive only for the normal period of limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
