Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the present case. The Tribunal observed that for invoking the extended period, at least one of the five elements of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax must be established. Mere difference of opinion between the department and the assessee regarding leviability of duty does not amount to wilful suppression of facts. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year, without invoking the proviso. The facts were already in the knowledge of the department through public documents and earlier show cause notices. The issue involved interpretation of law and there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act could not have been invoked in the present case. The Tribunal observed that for invoking the extended period, at least one of the five elements of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of service tax must be established. Mere difference of opinion between the department and the assessee regarding leviability of duty does not amount to wilful suppression of facts. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of one year, without invoking the proviso. The facts were already in the knowledge of the department through public documents and earlier show cause notices. The issue involved interpretation of law and there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.