Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant, as the service tax liability on food and beverages was under judicial consideration during the relevant period, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The Department's delayed communication was deemed a deliberate attempt to unjustifiably extend the limitation period. There was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax by the appellant, who had cooperated fully. Precedents emphasize the necessity of a prima facie finding of willful suppression or fraud to invoke extended limitation. Consequently, the show cause notice was held time-barred, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed without adjudicating on merits.
The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant, as the service tax liability on food and beverages was under judicial consideration during the relevant period, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The Department's delayed communication was deemed a deliberate attempt to unjustifiably extend the limitation period. There was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax by the appellant, who had cooperated fully. Precedents emphasize the necessity of a prima facie finding of willful suppression or fraud to invoke extended limitation. Consequently, the show cause notice was held time-barred, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed without adjudicating on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
