Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. For October 2011-March 2012, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to invoke extended limitation, following SC precedent that suppression of facts must be willful and demonstrate clear intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that mere suppression alone is insufficient - it must be deliberate and accompanied by intent to evade payment, similar to other serious infractions like fraud or collusion. The service tax demands for both periods were invalidated and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding service tax recovery for 2011-2012. The demand for April-September 2011 was time-barred, exceeding even the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act. For October 2011-March 2012, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to invoke extended limitation, following SC precedent that suppression of facts must be willful and demonstrate clear intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that mere suppression alone is insufficient - it must be deliberate and accompanied by intent to evade payment, similar to other serious infractions like fraud or collusion. The service tax demands for both periods were invalidated and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
