Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
