Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Appellants providing long duration courses not approved by AICTE were exempted from service tax liability u/s 65(105)(zzc) of Finance Act, 1994 until Finance Act, 2011 removed the exemption. However, Finance Act, 2012 reinstated the exemption from 01.07.2012. Thus, appellants had no tax liability for the impugned period. The department wrongly alleged suppression of facts and invoked extended period of limitation despite absence of tax evasion or malafide intent. CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
