Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended period of limitation for levying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The key points are: The revenue department issued a show cause notice based on 26AS statement from the Income Tax Department, invoking the extended period. However, the Tribunal consistently holds that the extended period cannot be invoked when the case is made solely based on 26AS statements, especially when no ingredients for invoking the extended period are present. In this case, the appellants are GTA service providers, and the service recipients are liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The department failed to provide evidence that the appellants rendered taxable services to persons not covered under RCM, requiring the appellants to pay the tax themselves. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. The extended period cannot be invoked, and the appeal succeeds on the limitation ground.
Extended period of limitation for levying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The key points are: The revenue department issued a show cause notice based on 26AS statement from the Income Tax Department, invoking the extended period. However, the Tribunal consistently holds that the extended period cannot be invoked when the case is made solely based on 26AS statements, especially when no ingredients for invoking the extended period are present. In this case, the appellants are GTA service providers, and the service recipients are liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The department failed to provide evidence that the appellants rendered taxable services to persons not covered under RCM, requiring the appellants to pay the tax themselves. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. The extended period cannot be invoked, and the appeal succeeds on the limitation ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
