Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
