Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The appellant's activity does not constitute Online Information and Data Based Access or Retrieval Services (OIDAR) as it involves developing software/websites or providing consultancy on the internet, which requires significant human intervention. The appellant's services do not involve merely accessing or retrieving online data, which is a prerequisite for OIDAR services as per the circular. The demand for service tax was based on a wrong presumption that the appellant's activity qualified as OIDAR. Rule 6(A) of the Service Tax Rules was also incorrectly invoked. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the confirmation of the service tax demand.
The appellant's activity does not constitute Online Information and Data Based Access or Retrieval Services (OIDAR) as it involves developing software/websites or providing consultancy on the internet, which requires significant human intervention. The appellant's services do not involve merely accessing or retrieving online data, which is a prerequisite for OIDAR services as per the circular. The demand for service tax was based on a wrong presumption that the appellant's activity qualified as OIDAR. Rule 6(A) of the Service Tax Rules was also incorrectly invoked. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the confirmation of the service tax demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
