Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The case involved the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
The case involved the taxability of health care services related to Stem Cell/Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. The issue was whether these services fell under the Negative List or the Mega Exemption Notification. The retrospective application of Notification No. 04/2014-ST was questioned, with reference to Circular No. 334/03/2014-TRU. The court held that retrospective application was not intended by the legislative amendment. The extended period of limitation was deemed applicable. The circular was found not to support retrospective effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case was followed. The appellant's inaction on registration and non-filing of returns showed willful default. The impugned order was upheld as legally sound, and the appeal was dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
