Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether appellants' receipts constituted taxable "service" or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant's activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT
Whether appellants' receipts constituted taxable "service" or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant's activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
