Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Entities registered as societies were treated as governmental authorities because they were established and wholly controlled by the Haryana Government to perform citizen-facing statutory functions through e-governance, and the amounts collected were statutory fees rather than commercial consideration. On that basis, services relating to municipal functions under Notification No. 25/2012-ST were exempt, so the service tax demand on merits failed. The Tribunal also found no suppression or intent to evade tax: the dispute was interpretational, the activities were in the public domain, and the entities acted under bona fide belief. The extended period and consequential penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were therefore unsustainable.
Entities registered as societies were treated as governmental authorities because they were established and wholly controlled by the Haryana Government to perform citizen-facing statutory functions through e-governance, and the amounts collected were statutory fees rather than commercial consideration. On that basis, services relating to municipal functions under Notification No. 25/2012-ST were exempt, so the service tax demand on merits failed. The Tribunal also found no suppression or intent to evade tax: the dispute was interpretational, the activities were in the public domain, and the entities acted under bona fide belief. The extended period and consequential penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were therefore unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
