This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
VAT Payment not Mandatory for Abatement; Revenue Bears Burden of Proving Consideration Receipt: CESTAT Delhi
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Jyoti Sarup Mittal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All CESTAT, CESTAT Delhi
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Jyoti Sarup Mittal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
Introduction: The case of Jyoti Sarup Mittal vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi) delves into the nuanced realm of works contracts, tax statutes, and exemptions. This article analyzes key aspects such as auditorium construction, works contract services, exemptions for governmental authorities, arbitration awards, and the role of Form 26AS entries.
1. Interpretation of Tax Statute: Auditorium Construction Exempted Pre-2012; Strict Construction Advocated:
For the period from 1.6.2007 up to 2012, works contracts could be ta...
Author Info
