Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Service tax demand cannot rest on Form 26AS alone; taxability must be determined under the governing statute, and receipts reflected in income tax data do not by themselves establish liability. The Court held the demand unsustainable because the authority failed to examine the nature of services and did not make a lawful finding that the services were taxable. It also held that the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires a conclusive finding of fraud, suppression or intent to evade, which was absent; the extended period was therefore invalid and the proceedings unauthorized. The writ petition remained maintainable despite an alternative remedy because the challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error apparent on the record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.