Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 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 4817 
Join Channel 
