Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
