Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the impugned levy of service tax on funds purportedly shared by the appellant with RDA lacked the essential contractual nexus required under section 66B(49) of the Finance Act, as no express or implied agreement existed between RDA and the appellant (SPV). The tribunal found no evidence that the appellant received the alleged consideration from RDA, and invoices were issued only to commercial users who had discharged service tax. The nature of the activity was determined to be repair and maintenance, not a Business Auxiliary Service, rendering the SCN unsustainable. Further, the SCN covering 2011-12 to 2015-16 was barred by limitation, with no suppression or evasion established. Consequently, the extended limitation period under section 73(1) and penalty provisions were inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the impugned levy of service tax on funds purportedly shared by the appellant with RDA lacked the essential contractual nexus required under section 66B(49) of the Finance Act, as no express or implied agreement existed between RDA and the appellant (SPV). The tribunal found no evidence that the appellant received the alleged consideration from RDA, and invoices were issued only to commercial users who had discharged service tax. The nature of the activity was determined to be repair and maintenance, not a Business Auxiliary Service, rendering the SCN unsustainable. Further, the SCN covering 2011-12 to 2015-16 was barred by limitation, with no suppression or evasion established. Consequently, the extended limitation period under section 73(1) and penalty provisions were inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
