Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
