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 appellant wrongly availed Cenvat credit on input services for unsold flats after issuance of completion certificate, contravening Rules 6(3) and 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was invoked for extended period of limitation, interest, and penalty. The appellant admitted that after receiving the completion certificate, the building became immovable property, and booking receipts were for sale of property, not service. The appellant had the option to take proportionate credit for sold flats and reverse the balance for unsold flats. Cenvat credit eligibility has a direct nexus with tax payment liability. Since the appellant had no service tax liability for unsold flats, they were ineligible to retain the availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal affirmed the invocation of extended period, penalty, and interest, as the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade service tax liability. The appeal was dismissed.
The appellant wrongly availed Cenvat credit on input services for unsold flats after issuance of completion certificate, contravening Rules 6(3) and 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was invoked for extended period of limitation, interest, and penalty. The appellant admitted that after receiving the completion certificate, the building became immovable property, and booking receipts were for sale of property, not service. The appellant had the option to take proportionate credit for sold flats and reverse the balance for unsold flats. Cenvat credit eligibility has a direct nexus with tax payment liability. Since the appellant had no service tax liability for unsold flats, they were ineligible to retain the availed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal affirmed the invocation of extended period, penalty, and interest, as the appellant suppressed material facts with intent to evade service tax liability. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
