Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.
Service tax demand based solely on Form 26AS was unsustainable because taxability had to be determined from the statute, relevant records and exemption materials, not inferred from third-party information. The Court held that the authorities failed to examine the plea that the receipts related to government works contracts covered by exemption and therefore did not establish any taxable liability under the Finance Act, 1994. It also held that the extended limitation period could be invoked only on the statutory grounds of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, none of which were properly found. The writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative appeal remedy because the impugned proceedings suffered from jurisdictional error and patent legal infirmity, and the demand, interest and penalty were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
