Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
