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...
HC determined the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original under Finance Act, 1994 were invalid due to improper service procedures under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite attempts at service via speed post, the notices were undelivered due to changed business address. The authority failed to properly execute alternative service methods through premises affixation or notice board posting as required by statute. Additionally, the petitioner was found not liable for service tax on export services. The court quashed both the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original, ruling the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to issue orders based on improperly served notices and misapplied tax liability principles. Petition allowed with remand.
HC determined the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original under Finance Act, 1994 were invalid due to improper service procedures under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite attempts at service via speed post, the notices were undelivered due to changed business address. The authority failed to properly execute alternative service methods through premises affixation or notice board posting as required by statute. Additionally, the petitioner was found not liable for service tax on export services. The court quashed both the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original, ruling the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to issue orders based on improperly served notices and misapplied tax liability principles. Petition allowed with remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
