Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
The CESTAT held that the agreements between the appellant (a builder/developer) and prospective buyers for construction of residential units are to be treated as works contracts, which were not taxable prior to 1.7.2010. Even if classified as "construction of complex" services, abatement would apply, making them composite works contracts. The demand of service tax is time-barred and not sustainable. The penalty on the appellant firm's partner u/s 78A is also not sustainable since the main demand is set aside. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
