Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
