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 CESTAT ruled that refund claims for service tax paid on mobilization advances for services never rendered are not subject to the limitation period under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Unlike excise duty, which becomes payable upon goods clearance, service tax liability arises only when a taxable service is actually rendered and consideration transferred. Since no taxable service existed in this case, the payment constituted a deposit made under mistaken belief rather than tax collected. The Tribunal distinguished this from tax payments requiring section 11B scrutiny, restoring the original refund sanction granted by the lower authority. Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT ruled that refund claims for service tax paid on mobilization advances for services never rendered are not subject to the limitation period under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Unlike excise duty, which becomes payable upon goods clearance, service tax liability arises only when a taxable service is actually rendered and consideration transferred. Since no taxable service existed in this case, the payment constituted a deposit made under mistaken belief rather than tax collected. The Tribunal distinguished this from tax payments requiring section 11B scrutiny, restoring the original refund sanction granted by the lower authority. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.