Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Contracts and invoices showed that the respondent offered...
Separately Identifiable Services: transportation found to be the essential character, so Cargo Handling classification and extended limitation rejected.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Contracts and invoices showed that the respondent offered distinct, itemised services which customers could select independently; applying statutory classification and the bundled-service explanation under the negative-list regime, the tribunal concluded the essential character was transportation (road/rail/GTA) and not Cargo Handling Service, so the activities were not naturally bundled and CHS did not apply. Revenue failed to prove that cargo handling formed the composite's dominant character or that suppression justified extended limitation; amounts already taxed as transport/GTA could not be re-taxed under CHS as that would cause impermissible double taxation. The revenue appeal was dismissed.
Contracts and invoices showed that the respondent offered distinct, itemised services which customers could select independently; applying statutory classification and the bundled-service explanation under the negative-list regime, the tribunal concluded the essential character was transportation (road/rail/GTA) and not Cargo Handling Service, so the activities were not naturally bundled and CHS did not apply. Revenue failed to prove that cargo handling formed the composite's dominant character or that suppression justified extended limitation; amounts already taxed as transport/GTA could not be re-taxed under CHS as that would cause impermissible double taxation. The revenue appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
