Finance Act 1994
4 articles
Consistency Is Sacrosanct in Revenue Matters: Bombay High Court Bars a Rs. 21.92 Crore Service Tax Demand the Department Had Already Dropped Against an Identically Placed Assessee
A show cause notice issued roughly two years after the transactions it targeted, confirming Rs. 21.92 crore in service tax, interest and penalty on a brewery's contract-bottling arrangement with its brand owner. The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's finding that the demand was time-barred, holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a specific averment of fraud or suppression in the show cause notice, and that the Department could not press an appeal against one assessee after having accepted an identical Tribunal order in favour of another.
14 min readA Department That Once Agreed With You Cannot Later Call You a Suppressor: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Service Tax Penalty on Construction Services to Government Hospitals and Educational Institutions
Two officers of the Service Tax Department told the audit wing, in writing, that a construction consultant's work for government hospitals and colleges was not taxable. Nineteen years and one appeal later, the Delhi High Court held that the Department could not turn around and call the same conduct wilful suppression warranting penalty, even after upholding the underlying demand for the last nine months of a five-year dispute.
13 min readNexus, Not Gross Value: CESTAT Strips Hostel, Mess and Study-Material Fees Out of Commercial Coaching Service Tax
A coaching institute billed tuition, hostel, mess and study-material fees separately for over a decade. The department taxed the lot as one bundle. CESTAT Hyderabad's Final Order works through nine appeals to hold that only what has a real nexus with coaching can be taxed as commercial coaching service — and that repeating a demand the department has already litigated cannot be dressed up as suppression.
14 min readNo Sovereign Shield for Commercial Leasing: CESTAT Holds Delhi Development Authority Liable to Service Tax on Renting Nazul Land
The Delhi Development Authority argued that leasing government land and running its sports complex were sovereign functions immune from service tax. CESTAT disagreed: an enabling power, exercised for consideration retained in the authority's own accounts, is commerce, not statutory duty.
13 min read