CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the demand as time-barred and unsupported by evidence beyond third-party income tax data. It held that absence of fraud or suppression invalidated extended limitation.
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 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 minor excess quantity supplied to cover transit damage does not amount to mis-declaration. It ruled that confiscation and penalty were not justified.
The tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice was invalid where tax liability was already declared in returns. The demand and penalties were set aside as proceedings lacked legal basis.
The issue involved classification of services related to rake movement. The Tribunal held that deployment of staff falls under manpower supply, not cargo handling. The takeaway is that correct classification determines tax liability.
The issue was whether the service provider was liable to pay service tax on manpower services. The Tribunal held that liability rests with the recipient under reverse charge, making the demand unsustainable.
The issue was whether services related to road construction for government bodies are taxable. The Tribunal held that such services are exempt, making the demand unsustainable.
