Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT held that the service tax demand raised beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty months was barred by limitation, as the extended five-year period could not be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. The appellant had duly declared export of services in their returns, and there was no indication that the department conducted the requisite scrutiny or sought further information, thereby precluding invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the notice issued after the limitation period was invalid. Given this finding, the tribunal declined to address whether the appellant qualified as an intermediary under the POPS Rules or whether the services constituted export under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the service tax demand raised beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty months was barred by limitation, as the extended five-year period could not be invoked absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. The appellant had duly declared export of services in their returns, and there was no indication that the department conducted the requisite scrutiny or sought further information, thereby precluding invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the notice issued after the limitation period was invalid. Given this finding, the tribunal declined to address whether the appellant qualified as an intermediary under the POPS Rules or whether the services constituted export under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules. The impugned order demanding service tax was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
