Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
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.