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 key points are: Appropriation of Rs. 11,00,000 deposited under protest during investigation cannot be considered as acceptance of liability. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked as the department failed to substantiate that the appellant suppressed material facts with an intent to evade service tax payment. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have held that for invoking extended limitation, suppression of facts must be willful with intent to evade tax. The burden of proving willful suppression lies on the department. Mere non-payment or short payment does not constitute suppression unless there is a deliberate act to evade tax with intent. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Commissioner's order holding that extended limitation cannot be invoked in this case.
The key points are: Appropriation of Rs. 11,00,000 deposited under protest during investigation cannot be considered as acceptance of liability. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act cannot be invoked as the department failed to substantiate that the appellant suppressed material facts with an intent to evade service tax payment. The Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have held that for invoking extended limitation, suppression of facts must be willful with intent to evade tax. The burden of proving willful suppression lies on the department. Mere non-payment or short payment does not constitute suppression unless there is a deliberate act to evade tax with intent. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the Commissioner's order holding that extended limitation cannot be invoked in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
