The SC held that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax ...

Supreme Court: Non-Disclosure in Tax Returns Isn't Evasion Without Clear Intent u/s 73(1) Finance Act 1994.

January 14, 2025

Case Laws Service Tax AT

The SC held that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax returns doesn't mean intent to evade tax payment. To invoke extended limitation period u/s 73(1) proviso of Finance Act 1994, deliberate and willful attempt to evade duty must be evident from assessee's conduct or records. Mere interpretation dispute doesn't justify extended period. Bona fide belief in non-liability, even if wrong, doesn't render it malafide. In self-assessment, assessee determines liability based on judgment; facts coming to light later doesn't prove evasion intent. The Department couldn't invoke extended period against the assessee for April 2008-March 2013 as no evasion intent was assigned. Appeal allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The SC held that mere non-disclosure of receipts in service tax ...

Supreme Court: Non-Disclosure in Tax Returns Isn't Evasion Without Clear Intent u/s 73(1) Finance Act 1994.

January 14, 2025

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

Dispute regarding non-payment/short payment of service tax, tax demand and interest u/ss 73(2) and 75, penalties u/ss 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended...

HC held that issuance of Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 without a proper Show Cause Notice u/s 73 of CGST/SGST Act is invalid. Proper Show Cause Notice...

The High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be considered a valid initiation of...

Section 80P deduction claim filed in a return submitted in response to notice u/s 142(1) is valid. The Income Tax Act does not mandate that the return must be filed u/ss...

Failure to produce supporting documents before audit team does not constitute suppression of facts to invoke extended period of limitation u/s 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994....

Levy of penalty u/s 129(3) - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - Referencing the judgment in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case, the Court observed that the...

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Banking and other Financial Services - once there is an excess payment, malafide intention that too of tax evasion cannot be alleged qua the...

Adjustment u/s 143(1) disallowing revenue expenditure claim u/s 11(1) was made without providing reasonable opportunity to assessee, violating second Proviso of Section...

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Recovery proceedings under GST - petitioner itself has quantified its tax liability under the GSTR-1 Returns. The petitioner's contention that in absence of...

The High Court examined whether proper show cause notices were issued before passing impugned orders u/s 73(9) of the State GST Act. It held that the summary of show...

Interest liability - delay in furnishing GSTR-3B return - Liability imposed without any adjudication proceeding u/s 73 or 74 - despite disputing the liability towards...

The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are:...

Rejection of rectification petition - turnover of the petitioner was erroneously reported in the GSTR 1 return - The High Court acknowledges the petitioner's claim...

The ITAT held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable on the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily paid tax on income from sale of shares three years prior to...

Quick Updates: