Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
