Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
