Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the service tax demand for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 wholly barred by limitation. The tribunal held that the jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize the appellant's returns, which consistently declared export of services. The extended limitation period was improperly invoked, as the department had prior knowledge of the appellant's service tax declarations. Given the limitation bar, the tribunal refrained from examining the substantive merits of the case, particularly noting the subsequent GST regime's implementation and the department's own prior favorable order for subsequent periods.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the service tax demand for the period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 wholly barred by limitation. The tribunal held that the jurisdictional officers failed to scrutinize the appellant's returns, which consistently declared export of services. The extended limitation period was improperly invoked, as the department had prior knowledge of the appellant's service tax declarations. Given the limitation bar, the tribunal refrained from examining the substantive merits of the case, particularly noting the subsequent GST regime's implementation and the department's own prior favorable order for subsequent periods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
