Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Recovery of service tax from the appellant, where the turnover reported in the balance sheet exceeded the amount reported in the belatedly filed Form ST-3 returns. The key points are: Section 66B imposed tax on services, except those listed in the negative list u/s 66D. Clause (p) of Section 66D excluded transportation services by road for goods, except when rendered by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) or courier agency. The revenue treated the services as taxable transportation by a GTA, but failed to provide consignment notes issued by the appellant as required by the GTA definition. Without such evidence, the turnover cannot be attributed to GTA services. The ST-3 returns, filed after inquiry initiation without late fees, lack evidentiary value and cannot ascertain tax liability. Being defective, the returns and facts therein are non est for investigation and adjudication. The CENVAT credit demand, rooted in the invalid service tax demand, is also unsustainable. The extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as there was no suppression of facts. The entire demand, based on the extended period, is invalid and time-barred. The pre-show cause notice consultation requirement was not met, but as the show cause notice itself failed on various grounds, this aspect became infructuous. Ultimately.
Recovery of service tax from the appellant, where the turnover reported in the balance sheet exceeded the amount reported in the belatedly filed Form ST-3 returns. The key points are: Section 66B imposed tax on services, except those listed in the negative list u/s 66D. Clause (p) of Section 66D excluded transportation services by road for goods, except when rendered by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) or courier agency. The revenue treated the services as taxable transportation by a GTA, but failed to provide consignment notes issued by the appellant as required by the GTA definition. Without such evidence, the turnover cannot be attributed to GTA services. The ST-3 returns, filed after inquiry initiation without late fees, lack evidentiary value and cannot ascertain tax liability. Being defective, the returns and facts therein are non est for investigation and adjudication. The CENVAT credit demand, rooted in the invalid service tax demand, is also unsustainable. The extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as there was no suppression of facts. The entire demand, based on the extended period, is invalid and time-barred. The pre-show cause notice consultation requirement was not met, but as the show cause notice itself failed on various grounds, this aspect became infructuous. Ultimately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
