Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
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.