Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3341 to 3360 of 96257 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 allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the demand for recovery of service tax with interest and penalty based on alleged suppression of material facts was unsustainable. The appellant had filed returns for both halves of FY 2014-15, declaring taxable service value and paying due service tax. The Show Cause Notice failed to establish willful suppression or intent to evade tax, a necessary prerequisite for invoking the extended limitation period. Mere bald allegations were insufficient to justify extended period invocation. Consequently, the demand issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred. The tribunal refrained from addressing other contentions, deciding solely on limitation grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
