Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Service Tax - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 25559 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2021 (5) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Recovery of admitted dues of service tax to be paid by the petitioners - petitioner would fairly state that the arrears are admitted and the orders of assessment giving rise to such demands have attained finality - HELD THAT:- In light of the fact that the impugned notice is only for collection of admitted dues that have become final and no legal flaw or infirmity has been raised in this regard, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

---

• 2021 (5) TMI 164 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  
  Rate of interest on delayed payment of service tax - at what rate petitioner is liable to pay interest i.e. 15% or 24%? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner firm started its service after completing registration formalities in July, 2011 and the respondents have calculated the interest liability from the first quarter of Financial Year 2011-12. If the petitioner firm has started its services in July 2011, there cannot be any demand for the first quarter of 2011-12. As per the contention of respondents, petitioner made delayed payment of service tax between August, 2016 and February, 2017, i.e. the time when aforesaid notification was in force i.e. 14.05.2016. The notification fixed the rate of simple interest @ 24% in case where any amount is specifically collected as service tax and still not deposited with the Central Government on ....... + More

---

• 2021 (5) TMI 159 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Validity of confirming demand of service tax - discount received from the manufacturers by way of credit notes - principal to principal relationship or not - Adjudicating authority did not follow the decisions of Tribunal since the revenue appeal is pending before the Apex Court - HELD THAT:- A perusal of definition of “service” would indicate that there must be (i) service provider, (ii) service recipient and (iii) consideration for providing a service. The aforesaid definition also clearly exempts the activity of transfer of title in goods by way of sale - A mere reading of the dealership agreement entered into between the assessee on the one hand and the manufacturers on the other would indicate that the petitioner purchases the goods from the manufacturers by way of sale - Even though the document may be styled as a dealer....... + More

---

• 2021 (5) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Demand of Differential Service Tax - laboratory testing of chemicals and materials for MSME and Government departments - no service tax was remitted for the period from 01.07.2003 to 13.10.2004, (after which petitioner duly registered themselves with the respondent on 14.10.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner has been remitting the service tax and also filing the necessary returns) - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the petitioner in KASHMIRI LAL VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. [2011 (3) TMI 1811 - DELHI HIGH COURT] passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.170 of 2010. In the said appeal, the regional testing laboratory, K.Pudur, Madurai, was the appellant. The petitioner is identically placed. The petitioner is also a regional testing laboratory. Therefore, whatever applied to the appellant therein would apply to the petit....... + More

---

• 2021 (5) TMI 15 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  Refund of CENVAT Credit - claim filed within the time limitation or not - date of filing of refund claim originally to be taken or the date on which rectified claim is submitted is to be taken into account? - HELD THAT:- The authorities below have computed the period of limitation from the date of re-submission of the refund claims. This is against the provisions of law. The date on which the refund claims has been originally submitted is the relevant date that has to be reckoned for computing the limitation of one year - When computed in such a manner, all these refund claims are well within time. The finding in the impugned order that these refund claims are time-barred is, therefore, set aside. Refund claim - denied on the ground that the balance in the Cenvat Account has been brought below the refund claim and, therefore, is not in co....... + More

---

• 2021 (5) TMI 8 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  
  Refund of Service tax - Requirement to debit the amount to be claimed as refund claimed on 30.6.2017 or not? - refund denied on the ground that on 30.6.2017 while shifting to GST regime, they have not debited the refund amount from the Cenvat Credit account in terms of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 are very much clear that the assessee is required to debit the amount of refund claim in Cenvat credit account at the time of filing of refund claim. Therefore, the observations made by both the authorities below are contrary to Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012. As the appellant has complied with the conditions of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 is evident from the facts of the case. There are no merit in the impugned order rejecting refund claim filed by the appellant, therefore, the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of Service Tax - service tax on the petitioner for utilizing the storage facility - period between September 1999 to March 2000 - Section 35(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Appeals against orders of the Tribunal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Mafatlal India Ltd., [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with refund of tax, classified refunds into two categories. The first one on account of unconstitutional levy and second one on account of illegal levy - Explaining the second category of refund, the Court also held that where a duty of tax has been collected under a particular order which has become final, the refund of that duty cannot be claimed unless the order (whether it is an order of assessment, adjudication or any other ord....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1157 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  Levy of Service Tax - appellant is a partner and the service recipient is a partnership firm - service recipient having relationship of partner and partnership firm can be categorised as service provider and service recipient or not - refundable or not even when the assessment of payment of service tax was not challenged - HELD THAT:- In a partnership firm, partner‘s capital can be in the form of cash/asset. It can also be in the form of contribution of skill and labour alone without contribution in cash. This issue has been considered by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAKANT MANILAL SHAH AND ANOTHER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1991 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]. In the said case, the issue for deciding was the validity of the partnership between the Karta of a Hindu undivided family and one of his sons. The so....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1096 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  Levy of service tax - reimbursement of the damage of the municipal roads due to such work - section 174 (2)(e) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- There is no scope for passing any interim order, as prayed for, in the writ petition as the same will amount to passing of final order in the writ petition. An issue, however, remains to be adjudicated as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay service tax in view of the notification and the fate of ₹ 18,90,432/- paid by the petitioner as GST. Let this matter appear under the heading “Hearing” on 25th February, 2021.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1092 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Revenue neutrality - issue is revenue neutral without involving of any out flow of net tax to the Government - suppression with intent to evade tax or not - extended period of limitation - reimbursement of actual expenses paid to another service provider - service also ought to have been provided by the appellant - pure agent services - omission to mention certain details in the periodical returns to be filed with the authorities - constitutes evidence of suppression of facts with a deliberate and wilful intention to evade tax or not. When actual expenses paid to another service provider are reimbursed by the service receiver, can still the authorities hold that that service also ought to have been provided by the appellant and therefore, the charges in this regard cannot be excluded as charges paid in the capacity as a 'Pure Agent....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1041 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - entitlement to take advantage of CENVAT credit on input tax under the scheme or not - whether the same has to be treated as pre-deposit under the Scheme or not? - after issuance of show cause notice on 7.9.2018, the respondent did file service tax returns and claimed CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- The dispute in the present case is that the appellants have disallowed the pre-deposit of ₹ 1,45,87,081/- i.e., amount of CENVAT which is the subject matter of the show cause notice while considering the application preferred in the SVLDR Scheme. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the Designated Committee to accept the declaration filed by the petitioner/respondent in the prescribed format as final and issue a modified Form No.SVLDRS-3 giving credit ....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 1004 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  
  CENVAT Credit - rendering free service and warranty labour charges - appellant has not paid any service tax on the said taxable service and the appellant has also not maintained separate accounts of input services utilized for providing exempted services - HELD THAT:- The cost of these services are included in the cost of the product accounted at sales showroom and VAT has been paid at the time of sale of the vehicle which is cleared from the cenvat reversal at sales showroom under Rule 6(3A) - learned Commissioner neglected the facts that the income accounted in the Books of Account are through notional entries and these costs are included in the cost of product as confirmed in the refund order. The confirmation of demand of ₹ 23,725/- under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 894 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  
  Refund of unutilized cenvat credit - service tax paid on various input services said to have been used for providing output services exported outside India - rejection of refund only on the ground of lack of nexus between the input services and the output services which is exported - N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012 read with Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - period October 2015 to December 2015 - HELD THAT:- It has been consistently held by the Tribunal in various decisions cited supra wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that after the amendment of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no need for one to one correlation between the input services and the output services and moreover the Board Circular dated 16/03/2012 also clarified that no correlation is required because the intention of the Government is to allow ref....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 888 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  Refund of service tax paid - development charges to SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai - time limitation - HELD THAT:- A refund claim as per section 104 has to be filed within six months from the date when the Bill receives the assent of the President of India. Such assent was received on 31.3.2017. Thus, the refund claim ought to have been filed on or before 30.9.2017. In the present case, the refund claim is filed on 9.10.2017. Needless to say that when the service tax has been collected by SIPCOT, the appellant would require necessary documents from SIPCOT to file the refund claim - there was a confusion as to who has to file the refund claim and therefore this has led to the delay in filing the refund claim. In the decision cited by the ld. Counsel for appellant, the Tribunal has considered the issue and held that the time li....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 863 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  
  Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of Service Tax - Input service - General Insurance Service - Club Membership Service - Photography Service - Credit Card and Debit Card Services - rejection on the ground of lack of nexus of the input service with the output service exported - exclusion of input service from the definition of Input Service under Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has given full justification that the said services have been used for providing the output service and I also find that the services viz. Architectural Service, Event Management Service, Works Contract Service, Supply of Tangible Goods Service, has been specifically held to be input service by various decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. General Insurance Service - HELD THAT:- The appellant has ....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 853 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  
  CENVAT Credit - input services - insurance premium paid in respect of “workmen compensation insurance policy” - It is the case of the revenue that insurance being specifically excluded from the definition of “input service” under CCR, 2004, no Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Workmen Compensation Insurance Policy’ is admissible to the appellant - whether the view expressed by CESTAT Hyderabad in M/S HYDUS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS CCE, C & ST, HYDERABAD-II [2017 (2) TMI 538 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] or the view expressed by CESTAT-Chennai in the case of M/S. GANESAN BUILDERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI-II [2017 (7) TMI 720 - CESTAT CHENNAI] is correct - matter has been referred to a larger Bench for a decision. HELD THAT:- In Hydus Technologies India, a learned Member (Ju....... + More

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 833 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
  
  Levy of Service Tax - Royalty and District Mineral Fund - period April, 2016 to June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Let this matter be tagged along with SUNITA GANGULY, WIFE OF SHRI ARDHENDU GANGULY VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, SUPERINTENDENT (PREV) , CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [2021 (3) TMI 601 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT], since the issues are common. List these cases accordingly.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 828 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Maintainability of summons - Constitutional validity of the levy of Service Tax on transfer of right to use intellectual property rights - HELD THAT:- The appellant submitted that in terms of the observation made by the learned Single Bench, the appellant has appeared before the Officer and also submitted his written submission. In such view of the matter, this writ appeal has become infructuous, as the summons issued to the appellant has worked by itself and the appellant has also appeared before the respondent. Appeal closed.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 825 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Attachment of petitioner's Bank Account - non-payment of service tax towards renting of immovable properties, inspite of more than one assessment order passed against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- In the counter affidavit, the adjudicating authority has stated that the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of ₹ 24,44,383/- towards service tax liability along with appropriate interest and penalty. Since the petitioner is a local body, certainly, relief can be granted in respect of the penalty portion. But then, the petitioner has to necessarily clear the service tax liability together with interest. The consequential recovery action cannot be interfered with - It is for the petitioner to move the adjudicating authority for appropriate relief - petition dismissed.

---

• 2021 (4) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - petitioner did not pay the required amount under the scheme within the period of 30 days - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner, he made an attempt to electronically make the said payment on 30.06.2020. Though the said amount was debited from the petitioner's account, it was subsequently re-credited. The payment process was not successful - The petitioner seems to have kept quiet thereafter. Though he would state that he was approaching the respondent officials in person, vide communication dated 15.01.2021, the fourth respondent herein called upon the petitioner to clear the original liability. Thereafter, the petitioner woke up and filed the present writ petition. After making the attempt on 30.06.2020, the petitioner appears to have gone into slumber and not even a representation is enclosed in the typed set of papers - no relief can be granted to the petitioner - petition dismissed.

---