https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259089 The court upheld the authority's decision to impose service tax on a real estate consultancy firm for amounts disbursed to third parties, despite the firm claiming to act as a conduit without providing any services. The court found that the firm willfully suppressed facts leading to tax evasion, justifying penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court dismissed the firm's writ petition challenging the authority's decision, stating that mere financial burden does not warrant interference under Article 226, as the decision was not arbitrary or against the law. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259089 The court upheld the authority's decision to impose service tax on a real estate consultancy firm for amounts disbursed to third parties, despite the firm claiming to act as a conduit without providing any services. The court found that the firm willfully suppressed facts leading to tax evasion, justifying penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court dismissed the firm's writ petition challenging the authority's decision, stating that mere financial burden does not warrant interference under Article 226, as the decision was not arbitrary or against the law. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259089