Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Liberal construction of sufficient cause justifies condonation of inordinate delay where criminal proceedings and jail confinement explained the defau...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5041 to 5060 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under "commercial and industrial construction service", but the impugned order confirmed demand under "works contract service" for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.
The appellant entered into works contracts for providing services along with materials. The show cause notice proposed demand under "commercial and industrial construction service", but the impugned order confirmed demand under "works contract service" for the period after 1st June 2007, without giving an opportunity to defend against this head. The order travelled beyond the show cause notice by demanding tax under a different head, which is impermissible as per settled legal position. Consequently, the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
