Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Service tax demand and interest were raised on the amount towards provident fund. Penalties u/ss 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed. The extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was invoked. The appellant was aware of providing taxable services and short-paid service tax, despite issuing invoices indicating service tax payable and collecting it from the service recipient. They did not file ST-3 returns on time as specified by law, suppressing information with the intent to evade taxes. The demand by invoking the extended period and imposing penalties cannot be disputed. The appellant's submissions were inconsistent, initially not contesting the show cause notice but later challenging the applicable rates without substantiation. The CESTAT rejected the challenge to the First Appellate authority's order, finding no merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
