Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7001 to 7020 of 96504 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4826 
Join Channel 
