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 filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by a Central Para Military Force against service tax demand on notional value of facilities provided by SSP. The appellant had discharged service tax on consideration received for security services but the Department demanded tax on additional facilities like rent-free accommodation, office premises, electricity, vehicles, fuel, medical treatment, and stationery provided by SSP. The Tribunal held that without evidence of actual payment or quantified cost in the MOU, notional value cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67(1)(ii) of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 3(3) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. The Tribunal also found no suppression by the appellant to invoke extended limitation period. Following precedent in CGST CCE Dehradun v. Commandant CISF Unit, the demand was set aside on both merits and limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
