Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4793
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
