Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6761 to 6780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether works contract services for a public water supply scheme (pipeline laying and allied works) provided to a government authority were exempt under specified notifications/entries, including Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The tribunal held exemption applies only if the activities strictly fall within the notification; on examining the nature of work, the claimed exemption was denied and the corresponding service tax demand sustained, while the demand relating to exempt water-treatment/sewerage-related works (including certain underground reservoir/ranney well works) was correctly dropped. On limitation, extended period was upheld because prior conduct under VCES negated bona fide belief, sustaining the demand. Penalties under s.77 and interest under s.75 were upheld for statutory contraventions and delayed payment, and the appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether works contract services for a public water supply scheme (pipeline laying and allied works) provided to a government authority were exempt under specified notifications/entries, including Sl. No. 12 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The tribunal held exemption applies only if the activities strictly fall within the notification; on examining the nature of work, the claimed exemption was denied and the corresponding service tax demand sustained, while the demand relating to exempt water-treatment/sewerage-related works (including certain underground reservoir/ranney well works) was correctly dropped. On limitation, extended period was upheld because prior conduct under VCES negated bona fide belief, sustaining the demand. Penalties under s.77 and interest under s.75 were upheld for statutory contraventions and delayed payment, and the appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
