Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The court held that the show cause notice issued by the respondents alleging non-payment of service tax by the petitioner for the financial year 2013-14 was without jurisdiction. The basis of the show cause notice was that the High Court had approved the scheme of arrangement without considering its contravention to the Finance Act, 1954 and the Rules. However, the court observed that if the respondents were aggrieved by the order approving the scheme, they should have challenged it, but they did not. The order sanctioning the scheme has attained finality. Additionally, the Gujarat High Court had previously quashed a similar show cause notice under the excise law for the same petitioner. Agreeing with the Gujarat High Court's decision, the court exercised its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
The court held that the show cause notice issued by the respondents alleging non-payment of service tax by the petitioner for the financial year 2013-14 was without jurisdiction. The basis of the show cause notice was that the High Court had approved the scheme of arrangement without considering its contravention to the Finance Act, 1954 and the Rules. However, the court observed that if the respondents were aggrieved by the order approving the scheme, they should have challenged it, but they did not. The order sanctioning the scheme has attained finality. Additionally, the Gujarat High Court had previously quashed a similar show cause notice under the excise law for the same petitioner. Agreeing with the Gujarat High Court's decision, the court exercised its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
