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 appellant, being the developer/co-developer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is entitled to a refund of service tax paid in relation to their authorized operations. The CESTAT Ahmedabad Bench, relying on previous decisions, held that the substantive benefit of service tax exemption u/s 26 of the SEZ Act cannot be negated by notifications issued under other enactments. The procedural and technical objections raised by the revenue were rejected. Once the tax was charged, collected, and paid, the recipient cannot be burdened to explain the levy. The appellant successfully established eligibility for a refund of service tax paid for transportation of passengers' services within the SEZ. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid for services used in authorized SEZ operations, and the appeals were allowed.
The appellant, being the developer/co-developer in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is entitled to a refund of service tax paid in relation to their authorized operations. The CESTAT Ahmedabad Bench, relying on previous decisions, held that the substantive benefit of service tax exemption u/s 26 of the SEZ Act cannot be negated by notifications issued under other enactments. The procedural and technical objections raised by the revenue were rejected. Once the tax was charged, collected, and paid, the recipient cannot be burdened to explain the levy. The appellant successfully established eligibility for a refund of service tax paid for transportation of passengers' services within the SEZ. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax paid for services used in authorized SEZ operations, and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
