Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The appellant sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
The appellant sub-contractor was not eligible for exemption under S.No.12(d) of Notification 25/2012 for services provided to the principal contractor engaged in dam construction by the Government. Their activities of site formation, excavation, etc. did not strictly fall within "by way of construction" of dam under strict interpretation. Even if provided indirectly through the contractor, their services were not covered by the exemption notification. Their activities could not be considered works contract service eligible for exemption under S.No.29(h) due to lack of transfer of property. The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked as the appellant did not have a bona fide belief of non-taxability. The appeal against confirmed service tax demand was dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
