Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
