Corporate guarantee invocation in insolvency petition: enforceability upheld, conditional sanction letter not a novation, limitation not barred after ...
NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Retail sale value of franchisor's products was not excludible from the taxable value of beauty parlour services because the assessee failed to produce contemporaneous invoices/bills in the contractually prescribed manner and produced no VAT registration or VAT payment evidence, defeating the plea of independent sale; consequently, service tax demand was sustained. CENVAT credit was held inadmissible as it was never taken during the relevant period/adjudication and, in any event, cannot be availed beyond the prescribed time-limit as settled by binding Larger Bench law; consequently, credit benefit was denied. Extended limitation was upheld due to suppression with intent to evade, evidenced by non-payment and non-filing of returns despite registration; consequently, demand, interest, and Section 77(2) penalty were upheld, with Section 78 penalty modified, and the appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
