Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal upholding a demand of ₹1,95,356 towards Service Tax for the financial year 2015–16, along with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was registered for providing “Business Auxiliary Services.” Based on […]
The Tribunal ruled that payments made during investigation become duty once appropriated in adjudication. It rejected the argument that such payments remain deposits under protest. The decision reinforces that refund claims for such amounts are subject to limitation.
ICAI Board holds CA not guilty in bribery case, finds no proof of knowledge or intent; mere receipt of packet without mens rea not misconduct, proceedings closed under Rule 15(2).
The Court permitted the taxpayer to obtain a stay by following the procedure under Section 112 and relevant CBIC circulars. It emphasized that compliance with pre-deposit and undertaking conditions is mandatory. The decision highlights the role of procedural compliance in securing relief.
The Tribunal confirmed service tax liability after finding that exemption conditions were not satisfied. It held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish eligibility. The ruling emphasizes strict interpretation of exemption notifications.
The Tribunal found that the department did not establish key elements such as origin and movement of goods. It held that failure to discharge burden of proof invalidates penalties.
The Tribunal held that relationship alone is insufficient to reject transaction value without proof of price influence. It ruled that absence of such evidence invalidates demand and penalties.
The framework enables wider access to GST appeals through online filing. However, procedural and portal limitations may hinder smooth justice delivery for taxpayers.
The issue explains how businesses qualify as local suppliers under procurement rules. The key takeaway is that proper local content declaration boosts tender eligibility and credibility.
The update prohibits most INR derivative contracts with related entities. Only specific transactions such as cancellations and non-related back-to-back trades are permitted.
