Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging service tax liability. The petitioner, a subcontractor, failed to produce requisite documents and challenge the tax order within the prescribed three-month statutory period under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act and Section 86 of the Finance Act. The court found the petitioner liable for service tax despite claims of potential double taxation, as the adjudicating authority had already considered tax deposits by principal contractors. The writ application was filed significantly beyond the limitation period, rendering the judicial review inappropriate and procedurally unsustainable.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging service tax liability. The petitioner, a subcontractor, failed to produce requisite documents and challenge the tax order within the prescribed three-month statutory period under Section 35(b) of the Central Excise Act and Section 86 of the Finance Act. The court found the petitioner liable for service tax despite claims of potential double taxation, as the adjudicating authority had already considered tax deposits by principal contractors. The writ application was filed significantly beyond the limitation period, rendering the judicial review inappropriate and procedurally unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
