The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again when the service provider has already collected and deposited the tax. The balance sponsorship service tax demand was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that modular kitchen baskets, racks, and similar products retain their identity as household articles and cannot be classified as parts of furniture merely because they are fixed in cabinets or drawers. The customs demand based on classification under Chapter 94 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that generalized investigation reports cannot substitute for concrete evidence against an assessee. Since the transactions were supported by documents and no direct evidence of undisclosed income existed, the addition was deleted.
The High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration following the Supreme Court’s directions on the retrospective insertion of Section 147A. The assessee was granted liberty to challenge the amended provision.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue relating to notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer was left open for reconsideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition after finding that excess stock discovered during survey was physically verified and admitted by the assessee. The later retraction was rejected as unsupported and delayed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that screening and grading of iron ore are mining-related activities covered under the taxable category of Mining Services. The Tribunal ruled that such activities could not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service.
The article explains visa requirements, documentation, and compliance obligations for foreign nationals seeking medical treatment in India. Choosing the correct visa category is essential to avoid legal issues.
The Telangana High Court refused to quash a GST show cause notice, holding that the question whether annuity payments were exempt or taxable required detailed factual examination. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be conclusively decided in writ proceedings.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere at the show cause notice stage, holding that the dispute should be examined through adjudication proceedings. It left all GST exemption and circular-related issues open for determination by the authorities.
