Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
CESTAT held that appellant was liable to pay service tax on selling commission under reverse charge mechanism. The selling agent services provided by M/s. Parah from UAE to appellant in India constituted "business auxiliary service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. Per Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, appellant as recipient was required to discharge service tax liability. However, CESTAT modified the order by restricting demand to normal period of limitation due to revenue neutrality, noting that mere non-registration and non-filing of returns cannot justify extended period invocation. Penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were set aside. Appeal partially allowed.
CESTAT held that appellant was liable to pay service tax on selling commission under reverse charge mechanism. The selling agent services provided by M/s. Parah from UAE to appellant in India constituted "business auxiliary service" under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. Per Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, appellant as recipient was required to discharge service tax liability. However, CESTAT modified the order by restricting demand to normal period of limitation due to revenue neutrality, noting that mere non-registration and non-filing of returns cannot justify extended period invocation. Penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were set aside. Appeal partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
