Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Refund claim rejected by adjudicating authority on grounds that services provided by appellant to SOLCIL did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST or negative list in Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. Documents showed appellant provided services only to SOLCIL, raised invoices, received payment, and paid service tax under business auxiliary service category. Neither notification nor circular provided exemption for business auxiliary services rendered by appellant to SOLCIL. Both parties located in taxable territory, hence service tax correctly levied. Appellant did not provide auxiliary education services to educational institutions to claim exemption. Authorities concluded exemption claimed by appellant inadmissible. Appellant failed to clarify nature of transaction. No illegality in rejecting refund claim. Impugned order upholding rejection of refund claim.
Refund claim rejected by adjudicating authority on grounds that services provided by appellant to SOLCIL did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST or negative list in Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994. Documents showed appellant provided services only to SOLCIL, raised invoices, received payment, and paid service tax under business auxiliary service category. Neither notification nor circular provided exemption for business auxiliary services rendered by appellant to SOLCIL. Both parties located in taxable territory, hence service tax correctly levied. Appellant did not provide auxiliary education services to educational institutions to claim exemption. Authorities concluded exemption claimed by appellant inadmissible. Appellant failed to clarify nature of transaction. No illegality in rejecting refund claim. Impugned order upholding rejection of refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
