Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
