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 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC "A"/"O" levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demands for service tax, interest and penalty. The Tribunal held that training provided to government employees pursuant to State mandate did not constitute taxable commercial training; vocational courses for disadvantaged/unemployed persons leading to DOEACC "A"/"O" levels were not taxable as commercial coaching; OIDAR demands were unsustainable because the appellant did not supply or own online data or provide data access/retrieval for consideration; and business auxiliary service demands failed for want of specification of the applicable sub-clause of Section 65(19). No wilful suppression was established. Consequently, the confirmed demands in respect of these three heads were held without merit and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
