The accused denied bail over alleged GST credential misuse to commit Rs.1,09,11,404 fraud involving multiple proprietorships; investigation to continu...
The CESTAT held that the impugned SCN was unsustainable because it failed to specify which taxable category applied to each receipt, and a statement issued under s.73(1A) was invalid where its grounds differed from the earlier SCN; accordingly demands on unspecified receipts were set aside. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a Governmental Authority and, for the years concerned, receipts relating to municipal functions and non-commercial construction are exempt under the relevant mega-notification; composite construction taxability could not be sustained without valuation machinery. Reverse-charge liability for legal services did not attach to the Governmental Authority. Matters concerning taxable commercial construction were remanded for quantification; penalty under s.70 read with Rule 7C was upheld. Appeals partially allowed and remitted.
The CESTAT held that the impugned SCN was unsustainable because it failed to specify which taxable category applied to each receipt, and a statement issued under s.73(1A) was invalid where its grounds differed from the earlier SCN; accordingly demands on unspecified receipts were set aside. The Tribunal found the appellant to be a Governmental Authority and, for the years concerned, receipts relating to municipal functions and non-commercial construction are exempt under the relevant mega-notification; composite construction taxability could not be sustained without valuation machinery. Reverse-charge liability for legal services did not attach to the Governmental Authority. Matters concerning taxable commercial construction were remanded for quantification; penalty under s.70 read with Rule 7C was upheld. Appeals partially allowed and remitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
