Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The court held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the appellant as there was no willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax. The imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not warranted in the absence of malafide intent on the part of the appellant. The case did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 73 or sub-section 4 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The court held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not be invoked against the appellant as there was no willful suppression of facts or deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax. The imposition of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not warranted in the absence of malafide intent on the part of the appellant. The case did not fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 73 or sub-section 4 of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
