Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Non-payment of service tax - aviation services - The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's Delhi unit had discharged its service tax liability for chartering aircraft and dry leasing arrangements. It observed that the income shown in the returns and balance sheets represented two separate activities, one being the supply of tangible goods by chartering aircraft and the other being dry leasing arrangements. The Tribunal concluded that the income from dry leasing arrangements, considered a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, was excluded from the scope of service tax. - The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the vagueness of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention regarding jurisdiction, since the services were provided outside the jurisdiction of the Raipur commissionerate and the tax was already discharged by the Delhi unit, the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction.
Non-payment of service tax - aviation services - The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's Delhi unit had discharged its service tax liability for chartering aircraft and dry leasing arrangements. It observed that the income shown in the returns and balance sheets represented two separate activities, one being the supply of tangible goods by chartering aircraft and the other being dry leasing arrangements. The Tribunal concluded that the income from dry leasing arrangements, considered a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution, was excluded from the scope of service tax. - The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the vagueness of the show cause notice. - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention regarding jurisdiction, since the services were provided outside the jurisdiction of the Raipur commissionerate and the tax was already discharged by the Delhi unit, the show cause notice lacked jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
