Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dispute regarding non-payment/short payment of service tax, tax demand and interest u/ss 73(2) and 75, penalties u/ss 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended period for demand invoked under the proviso to Section 73(1). Both authorities found no fault with non-payment/short payment of service tax. Appellant admitted short payment, differing only on deductions claimed for provident fund amounts, which the adjudicating authority excluded as not part of the present show cause notice. Service tax rightly demanded and confirmed after allowing deductions for services provided before 16.06.2005 and deducting service tax included in gross amount. Appellant aware of providing taxable services, short-paying service tax, issuing invoices indicating payable service tax, and collecting it from service recipients. Appellant did not file ST-3 returns during the entire period, suppressing information with intent to evade taxes. Extended period of limitation and penalties imposed cannot be disputed. Assessee's appeal dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Dispute regarding non-payment/short payment of service tax, tax demand and interest u/ss 73(2) and 75, penalties u/ss 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended period for demand invoked under the proviso to Section 73(1). Both authorities found no fault with non-payment/short payment of service tax. Appellant admitted short payment, differing only on deductions claimed for provident fund amounts, which the adjudicating authority excluded as not part of the present show cause notice. Service tax rightly demanded and confirmed after allowing deductions for services provided before 16.06.2005 and deducting service tax included in gross amount. Appellant aware of providing taxable services, short-paying service tax, issuing invoices indicating payable service tax, and collecting it from service recipients. Appellant did not file ST-3 returns during the entire period, suppressing information with intent to evade taxes. Extended period of limitation and penalties imposed cannot be disputed. Assessee's appeal dismissed by CESTAT (Appellate Tribunal).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
