Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Reverse charge mechanism for service tax distinguishes the recipients liability from the providers: where law makes the service recipient solely liable to pay, the provider is not answerable for unpaid tax. The Revenue bears the burden to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts before invoking the extended period of limitation; absent such proof and where the provider had a bona fide belief that liability rested on the recipient, an extended-period demand against the provider cannot be sustained. Result: impugned extended-period demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Reverse charge mechanism for service tax distinguishes the recipients liability from the providers: where law makes the service recipient solely liable to pay, the provider is not answerable for unpaid tax. The Revenue bears the burden to prove fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts before invoking the extended period of limitation; absent such proof and where the provider had a bona fide belief that liability rested on the recipient, an extended-period demand against the provider cannot be sustained. Result: impugned extended-period demand set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
