Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
CESTAT held that the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was time-barred. The appellant had filed a declaration on 31.12.2013 under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, but the notice was only served on 02.01.2015, beyond the statutory one-year limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that "service" of notice must comply with statutory provisions, and neither issuance of the show cause notice nor pasting it on factory premises constituted proper service as required by law. Since the notice was not served within the prescribed time limit, all subsequent proceedings including demand confirmation were deemed non-maintainable. The appeal was allowed without examining the second ground regarding false declaration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.