Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
