<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (4) TMI 72 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750891</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal of a sub-contractor challenging best judgment assessment under section 72 of Finance Act, 1994 for service tax liability. The appellant claimed contracts were works contract services rather than commercial/industrial construction services, asserting composite nature involving materials and services with VAT paid on 65% value. The tribunal rejected these submissions as unsupported by documentary evidence. Despite appellant&#039;s illiteracy claims, the tribunal noted signed documents in Hindi and emphasized responsibility to maintain records. The appellant failed to demonstrate tax exemption, main contractor&#039;s tax payment on their services, or composite contract nature with VAT payment. The tribunal upheld the assessment as proper given appellant&#039;s failure to register, pay tax, file returns, or produce supporting documentation during investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 72 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750891</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal of a sub-contractor challenging best judgment assessment under section 72 of Finance Act, 1994 for service tax liability. The appellant claimed contracts were works contract services rather than commercial/industrial construction services, asserting composite nature involving materials and services with VAT paid on 65% value. The tribunal rejected these submissions as unsupported by documentary evidence. Despite appellant&#039;s illiteracy claims, the tribunal noted signed documents in Hindi and emphasized responsibility to maintain records. The appellant failed to demonstrate tax exemption, main contractor&#039;s tax payment on their services, or composite contract nature with VAT payment. The tribunal upheld the assessment as proper given appellant&#039;s failure to register, pay tax, file returns, or produce supporting documentation during investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>