Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
CESTAT held that the appellant, a study centre, was not entitled to service tax exemption under multiple notifications due to direct fee collection from students. The tribunal found no wilful suppression of facts to justify extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act. The demand for service tax during normal limitation period was confirmed, while the extended period demand was set aside. The matter was remitted to Commissioner to examine the normal period demand and potential penalties. The appeal was partially allowed, with the appellant required to pay service tax for the standard limitation timeframe.
CESTAT held that the appellant, a study centre, was not entitled to service tax exemption under multiple notifications due to direct fee collection from students. The tribunal found no wilful suppression of facts to justify extended limitation period under section 73(1) of Finance Act. The demand for service tax during normal limitation period was confirmed, while the extended period demand was set aside. The matter was remitted to Commissioner to examine the normal period demand and potential penalties. The appeal was partially allowed, with the appellant required to pay service tax for the standard limitation timeframe.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
