The Court dismissed the appeal after finding that all issues were already settled by earlier rulings. It held that no new question of law arose and affirmed the Tribunal’s order.
CESTAT held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It set aside entire tax demand due to lack of intent to evade.
The Tribunal held that service recipients are not liable for Service Tax where the liability rests with the service provider. It set aside demands on security and car hiring services while confirming tax only on conceded services. The ruling clarifies correct allocation of tax liability.
The Tribunal examined whether leasing property to a company makes it taxable. It held that actual use determines taxability, not the identity of the lessee. Since the property was used for residential purposes, service tax demand was quashed.
The case addressed whether authorities can change the taxable category during adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice is the foundation and cannot be altered. The demand was set aside as it exceeded the scope of the notice.
The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
High Court allowed restoration of GST registration even after dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds. Relief was granted subject to filing returns and payment of dues.
The Court held that serving notices at an outdated address violates natural justice. The proceedings were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT held that secondment of employees is taxable as manpower supply service. However, it set aside extended period demands due to absence of suppression.
The case addressed whether delayed appeals can be entertained through writ jurisdiction. The Court ruled that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
