Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT upheld the impugned order in part, dismissing the appellant's challenge to rejection of a VCES declaration and second rectification application. The Tribunal found no breach of natural justice in denial of a further personal hearing, noting the appellant filed a second rectification months after the first and impermissibly sought to re-agitate the competent authority's VCES rejection instead of pursuing the prescribed appellate remedy. Errors alleged did not constitute an obvious error under section 74 of the Finance Act. On merits, the Tribunal agreed the services rendered to various public sector entities were taxable (subject to abatement under the valuation rules) and not exempt, and therefore sustained the demand while allowing the appeal only insofar as recorded in the impugned order.
CESTAT upheld the impugned order in part, dismissing the appellant's challenge to rejection of a VCES declaration and second rectification application. The Tribunal found no breach of natural justice in denial of a further personal hearing, noting the appellant filed a second rectification months after the first and impermissibly sought to re-agitate the competent authority's VCES rejection instead of pursuing the prescribed appellate remedy. Errors alleged did not constitute an obvious error under section 74 of the Finance Act. On merits, the Tribunal agreed the services rendered to various public sector entities were taxable (subject to abatement under the valuation rules) and not exempt, and therefore sustained the demand while allowing the appeal only insofar as recorded in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
