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" ?
The appellant provided two services - servicing of motor vehicles and running an amusement park. The amusement park service was exempt from service tax until 1.6.2015. After that, it became taxable but the appellant did not pay service tax, claiming it was covered under the negative list or exemption. However, the tribunal held that the amusement park service was not covered under the negative list or exemption after 1.6.2015 and hence taxable. Regarding the time limitation, the tribunal held that since the appellant had a bona fide belief of non-taxability and the revenue did not scrutinize the returns, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The demand for short payment of service tax under repairs and maintenance services was also time-barred. The tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 72,94,797/- towards reversal of CENVAT credit on merits, relying on court rulings that revenue cannot demand reversal without asking for proportionate reversal. The total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,73,60,105/- was set aside due to limitation. The appeal was allowed.
The appellant provided two services - servicing of motor vehicles and running an amusement park. The amusement park service was exempt from service tax until 1.6.2015. After that, it became taxable but the appellant did not pay service tax, claiming it was covered under the negative list or exemption. However, the tribunal held that the amusement park service was not covered under the negative list or exemption after 1.6.2015 and hence taxable. Regarding the time limitation, the tribunal held that since the appellant had a bona fide belief of non-taxability and the revenue did not scrutinize the returns, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The demand for short payment of service tax under repairs and maintenance services was also time-barred. The tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 72,94,797/- towards reversal of CENVAT credit on merits, relying on court rulings that revenue cannot demand reversal without asking for proportionate reversal. The total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,73,60,105/- was set aside due to limitation. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.