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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the departmental demand for service tax, finding that the facilities were developed for commercial use and therefore not eligible for the exemption relied upon. The Tribunal held the appellant and the contracting authority acted as intermediaries for a government-funded project to be owned and operated by a project society, with revenue-generating leases to an operator; accordingly the exemption was inapplicable. CESTAT sustained invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73, held suppression with intent to evade tax proved, and affirmed imposition of penalty under section 78 and interest under section 75 of the Finance Act. All reliefs claimed by the appellant were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
