Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
