TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside service tax demand against a goods transport agency. The tribunal held that demand cannot be raised solely based on discrepancies between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS/ITR data, as established in precedent cases. Services rendered to body corporates attracted reverse charge mechanism under Notification 30/2012-ST, making the recipient liable for tax payment. Services provided to other GTAs were exempt under entry 22 of Notification 25/2012-ST. The department incorrectly applied best judgment assessment despite regular ST-3 filing and failed to extend cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2). Extended limitation period was improperly invoked as appellant acted in bonafide belief regarding tax liability. The original order was passed ex-parte despite appellant's timely reply to show cause notice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
