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 under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked where the bill of entry disclosed the tariff item and described the imported software CD as relatable to the LRSAM system, and the show cause notice relied only on an allegation of misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period requires a deliberate misstatement or suppression made with intent to evade duty, and that intent was not established, particularly given the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking engaged in defence supplies. As the demand rested entirely on the extended period, it failed. The consequential penalty under section 114A also failed because its foundation was the same as the extended-period allegation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
