PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Non-filing of mandatory ST-3 returns despite registration, coupled with non-response to departmental enquiries, was held to constitute willful suppression with intent to evade service tax on taxable services under the Finance Act, 1994, justifying demand on differential receipts. Consequently, the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) was upheld, and the challenge on limitation failed. Since the demand was sustained, interest under Section 75 was also sustained. Penalty under Section 78 was upheld as a corollary to established suppression with intent to evade, and late fee under Rule 7C and penalty under Section 77(1)(c) were upheld for statutory non-compliance and failure to furnish information. Appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.