Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of "person" operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust's sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that the demand for service tax on amounts received up to 30.06.2012 from the State-affiliated urban improvement trust cannot be sustained because the trust did not fall within the statutory definition of "person" operative before 01.07.2012; accordingly that portion of the demand was set aside. For the period July 2012-March 2015 the Tribunal upheld the demand, finding the trust's sale of EWS/LIG flats to be a commercial supply not covered by the notified exemption and that the appellant was not entitled to reliance on Notification No.25/2012; however, taxable events were to be quantified by dates of payment under the continuous-supply principle. Extended-period invocation was rejected and penalties were set aside; the impugned order was modified and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
