Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Extended limitation was held applicable because the investigation materials showed wilful misstatement and suppression of facts, including diversion of duty-free imports, use of an incorrect export code, and alleged manipulation of export documentation. The plea that the discrepancy was merely clerical was rejected, and the show cause notice was treated as timely. The requirement of pre-deposit was also upheld as reasonable because the appellants could not rely on parity with an earlier order involving different facts and limited bills of entry. On that basis, the direction to deposit amounts and the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.