https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462024 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal, upholding service tax demand and penalties against a proprietor operating two separate firms. The tribunal held that proprietorship concerns have no independent identity from their proprietor, making the individual liable for both entities' tax dues. Best judgment assessment under Section 72 was validly applied due to irregular return filing. The proprietor suppressed taxable value with intent to evade service tax, justifying demand, interest and penalties under Sections 78, 77 and Rule 7(C). The VCES declaration was substantially false, withdrawing immunity under Section 108. Service tax collected but not deposited remained recoverable under Section 73A. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2025 20:06:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462024 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal, upholding service tax demand and penalties against a proprietor operating two separate firms. The tribunal held that proprietorship concerns have no independent identity from their proprietor, making the individual liable for both entities' tax dues. Best judgment assessment under Section 72 was validly applied due to irregular return filing. The proprietor suppressed taxable value with intent to evade service tax, justifying demand, interest and penalties under Sections 78, 77 and Rule 7(C). The VCES declaration was substantially false, withdrawing immunity under Section 108. Service tax collected but not deposited remained recoverable under Section 73A. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462024