Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise cannot continue the proceedings for adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, after the lapse of thirteen years.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 28
The Delhi High Court set aside the demand for service tax of Rs. 56 crores against MTNL holding that the surrender of any right to use the spectrum before 14-5-2016, the date on which the Finance Act, 2016 came into force, will not be chargeable to service tax.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 427 — Consecutive or concurrent running of sentences: Normal rule is that such subsequent sentence shall
The practice and procedure, both pre and post GST are consistent and involve participation of the officer of the DGGI in issuance of show cause notices.
CESTAT states that cancelled flat bookings amount to non-performance of service,Held that Service tax is not applicable if no service is rendered.
The supply of ISO Tankers on lease/rental basis by foreign suppliers to the appellant would amount to a ‘deemed sale’ under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution as the appellant throughout had effective control and possession over the ISO Tankers.
AIFF did not render any service but concurred with the agreement whereby the rights were transferred from ZEEL to IMGR
The High Court has also observed that the Service Tax Department cannot invoke the extended period on the sole ground of omission as the same can be invoked only when that there is a deliberate intention to evade payment of tax.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal: The coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) set aside
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal holding that Cenvat Credit of Service Tax
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed involving the question of
Madras High Court: In a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical
Supreme Court settled the issue of whether “body corporate” is excluded from the definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the amendment in 2005.
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member)
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member),
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) and P. Dinesha (Judicial Member)