Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Krishan Murari Gupta Versus C.C.E. &S. T., Jaipur-I

Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - Activity of getting investments in mutual funds on commission basis - the contention that the appellant was an individual and hence not liable to service tax during the relevant period - commercial concern - Held that:- the appellant was a proprietary concern and not an individual. It is trite to say that a proprietary concern rendering the said service is a commercial concern. - Validity of demand beyond normal period where the penalty was waived invoking .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellant : Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 04.07.2011, which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 19.11.2010 in terms of which, inter alia, service tax demand of ₹ 36,935/- for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2005 along with interest was confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) in-as-much-as, it engaged in getting investments in mutual funds on commission bas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide belief that it was not liable to pay service tax. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand supported the impugned order and added that in Para 7.2 of the impugned order the issue of giving benefit of Section 80 ibid while still upholding the demand is lucidly analysed. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that it is not disputed that the service provided by the appellant clearly falls under BAS covered under Section 65 (19) ibi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

say that a proprietary concern rendering the said service is a commercial concern. 5. Coming to the contention that once Section 80 ibid has been invoked to set aside penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 ibid, then the extended period cannot be invoked, we find that there is a clear finding by the lower authorities regarding suppression of facts and the appellant did not argue about the untenability of the said finding except to say that invocation of Section 80 ibid disables invocation of ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version