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...
CESTAT held that services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT held that services rendered in the demarcated CCTL-CFS area are not port services and that subcontractors performing cargo handling activities are taxable service providers; accordingly the demand for service tax on merits was sustained against the appellant and the revenue. However, invocation of the proviso to Section 73(1) FA, 1994 for an extended period was rejected because no evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement was found, the amounts were reflected in public financial statements and ST-3 returns, and the appellants acted under a bona fide belief based on precedent. Consequently the demand is barred by limitation and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
