Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand, holding that the appellant's activity of placing and managing spare-parts inventory at customer premises does not constitute a taxable "supply of tangible goods service." The Tribunal found no material distinction from prior proceedings where VAT/CST was discharged on a deemed-sale basis and invoices were raised accordingly; in such circumstances, payment of VAT/CST precludes liability for service tax. Although the appellant failed to notify the Division Bench of an identical earlier decision, the Revenue produced no new facts to distinguish the matters. On the majority view, no service tax is payable and the appeal is allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the service-tax demand, holding that the appellant's activity of placing and managing spare-parts inventory at customer premises does not constitute a taxable "supply of tangible goods service." The Tribunal found no material distinction from prior proceedings where VAT/CST was discharged on a deemed-sale basis and invoices were raised accordingly; in such circumstances, payment of VAT/CST precludes liability for service tax. Although the appellant failed to notify the Division Bench of an identical earlier decision, the Revenue produced no new facts to distinguish the matters. On the majority view, no service tax is payable and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
