(c) Can the extension of time be requested? Turnkey project: request for the total value under the construction contract Service: Stay: Even if the project is a turkey contract, the value of the material provided must also be excluded from the value of the taxable services, and if this is excluded, then the customer has prima facie already paid the service tax on the remaining part of the services: Prima Facie argues in favor of renunciation. (i) in the case of a taxable supply of services for which no service tax has been collected or paid or which has been levied that is too short or too short- 3. The complainant disputed, inter alia, that the application for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 even exceeded the maximum limitation period of five years provided for in Article 73 of the Act. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, on the ground that the absence of LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-487-18 of 01.3.2018 was adopted in the case of Aar Kay Industries, Mohali, on the ground that, in the event of non-registration of a party, the relevant date for the calculation of the restriction was the date on which the tax was due. Request: Limitation: The issue in this case involves the interpretation of law and facts and therefore we do not deem it necessary to invoke an extended period of time: The Soverign function performed by the plaintiffs on behalf of the RBI is exempt from tax. The ST-3 return contains the details of the service tax paid through the CENVAT credit and cash. The accusation of a use of credit of more than 20% is not tenable. The demand, which goes beyond the normal period of one year, is not maintained. Security Agency Service: Restriction: The call for an extended period is also viable insofar as the complainant deliberately hid the details of the services provided to the Ministry and, therefore, the confirmation of the claim with reference to the extended period is legally correct. Cenvat credit: Services provided outside the SEZ: Longer period: Even if the complainants had to pay the service tax, the beneficiary could have claimed the refund, and in the period before 03.03.2009 and after 20.05.2009, an exemption was available, and apparently during the relevant period by monitoring, the provisions of the exemption were omitted: Longer period not applicable.
If the notification of the notice is suspended by order of a court, the duration of such suspension shall be determined when calculating the above-mentioned period of one year or one year. Five years. It is a generally accepted law that if there are positive or contradictory decisions that hold the field, the good faith of an evaluator cannot be challenged. The court held that the request to increase the normal limitation period beyond the normal limitation period was not justified. The General Court set aside the order under appeal. Consulting engineering: Application: Limitation: The competent authority itself has found an appropriate authority to invoke Article 80, hence the requirement of a longer period that is not viable: instructions for partial advance payment of claims for the normal period. A Notice of Justification dated April 16, 2014 (“SNA”) has been sent to M/s. SOTC Travels Services Pvt Ltd (“the complainant”), as a service provider for air travel agents at the Embassy of the United States of America, issued for improper use the exemption from services intended for diplomatic missions or consular posts in India pursuant to Communication No. 33/2007-ST of 23 May. 2007 and Communication No. 27/2012- ST of 20.
June 2012 (“Notice of Exemption”) (d) If so, is the complainant liable under the provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to the payment of interest and penalties, as alleged in the statement of complaint? The court noted that prima facie sound evidence of a complete waiver had been presented on the ground that the entire claim covered the period from 01.07.2003 to 08.07.2004 and was raised in the notice of notification of 13.06.2006 is limited by restriction, given that the appellant`s activity was very well aware of the Ministry and that a service tax was required of him in the “compensation and transmission” category, the application was annulled by the General Court and dismissed the interpretation of the revenue. The agreement concluded by the applicant with M/s Cipla was the subject of an earlier notification notice and was also the subject of an action before the Court. The Court of First Instance therefore held that the applicant could not prima facie be found guilty of having eliminated facts with the intention of evading payment of customs duties in order to obtain the extended limitation period. 11. The only question before this is whether or not the application for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 is sustainable thanks to the publication of the notification of 6.4.2018? The defendant provides tour operator services. In the defendant`s ST-3 statements, the Court noted that clear observations had been made in favour of excluding a certain amount from the value of the taxable service on the ground that tax on that amount was payable by the main tour operators. Accordingly, the defendant cannot be criticised for having deleted facts relating to that amount. If all the records, as requested by the Division, had been submitted by the defendant for review of his ST-3 statements, it would not be correct to accuse the defendant of intentional misrepresentation, suppression of facts, etc. The court upheld the Commissioner`s order (appeals) on the basis that the application is time-barred and that there was absolutely no suppression of facts or information on the part of the respondent. Part of the service tax claim is related to the inclusion of chaos fees. The court held that the measurement fee charged could in no way be considered a receipt for the provision of the “commercial training and coaching” services. There should always be a correlation between the amount collected and the service provided.
Fair fees were charged for the use of the mess facility, which is intended for the provision of food to the trainees. It cannot be placed in the receipt category for “Business Training or Coaching” and is subject to the service tax. The announcement was issued on the basis of a verification objection. There is no justification for relying on the longer period. Restriction: BAS: The complainant`s activities were known to the Division and the Division strongly disagreed as to the category in which the service tax could be levied on services received by the complainant. It moved from BAS to computer network services and finally to an intellectual property service. Given this factual situation, the question of the appellant`s suppression of all the facts does not arise at all. Maintenance or repair service: The value of spare parts sold by the service provider for which VAT has been paid is not included in the taxable amount. The complainant, Mr Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Baran, was established by the Government of the State of Rajasthan in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Products Markets Act 1961.
In order to fulfil the obligations imposed on the appellant to provide the necessary facilities for the marketing of agricultural products, he rented shops or godowns in the market area and charged an allocation fee to traders or farmers. Restriction: The court granted the plaintiff the benefit of a bona fide conviction and held that in the absence of intentional misrepresentation, the suppression of the facts with the intention of evading payment of tax cannot be invoked. For this reason, the Department cannot claim that the complainant deleted a fact. If an appraiser has deleted facts, the extended limitation period can only be invoked if the “suppression” or “collusion” is intentional with the intention of evading payment of tax. The use of extended limitation period is therefore not defensible in the present case. 2. The facts are that the applicant is engaged in the production of tangible goods services. The investigation was opened by Chandigarh`s central excise and tax officers, citing the newsletter of 4.8.2016 in which the complainant cooperated and provided the necessary documents. During the investigation, as recommended by the officials, the complainant also filed Rs.6.52.838 /- on eight different dates between 29.9.2016 and 31.3.2017 depending on the availability of funds. On 6.4.2018, in accordance with Article 73 of the Finance Law of 1994, a notification for the levying of a service tax in the amount of Rs.27.31.156 / – for the period from 1.7.2012 to 31.3.2013 was issued, citing the extended limitation period. She pleaded before the Commissioner (appeals) and proved that the applicability of section 18 of the limitation period did not result from the original order and that the review order was therefore void. It has also been argued that the Statute of Limitations applies only to actions and other proceedings and for related purposes.
And according to Article 2(j) of the limitation period, “limitation period” means the prescribed limitation period for each action, appeal or claim set out in the Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the limitation period calculated in accordance with the provisions of this Act. .