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 held that remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
CESTAT held that remittances made by the appellant to overseas subsidiaries/licensees during April 2014-June 2017 did not constitute consideration for any "service" under s.65B(44) and were merely inter-company commercial settlements; no import of service arose and, applying POPS Rules, any performance-based activities occurred outside the taxable territory. The demand of service tax under RCM of Rs.36,77,40,000/- with interest and penalties was set aside on merits; extended limitation and penalties under ss.77-78 were also held unsustainable due to absence of suppression/intent and revenue-neutrality. A separate demand of Rs.1,16,11,766/- for Dec 2016 was remanded for verification of claimed tax payment/clerical omission in returns. Appeal partly allowed and partly remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
