Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
