Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 16 of 16 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.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1486 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ..... as been pointed out to indicate that the assessee is otherwise not entitled to the benefit of the notification. In the memo of appeal a ground has been raised that the assessee was promoting the business of a registered/branded entity and was liable to pay service tax from the first amount. However, no such contention appears to have been raised before the Tribunal. Moreover, a perusal of the show cause notice indicates that no such ground has been taken in the show cause notice also. In the circumstances, since the said ground does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is not permissible for the appellant to take such a plea for the first time before this Court, more so, since the same would also involve disputed questions of fact. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is not possible to state that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1449 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ith the preliminary objection of the petitioner that the show cause notice could not have been issued in the obtaining factual matrix regard being had to the factual scenario. Mr. Bhatia as well as Mr.Mukesh Anand fairly stated that the adjudicating authority shall dwell upon the said facet as a preliminary issue. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the adjudicating authority, the second respondent herein, to decide the matter with regard to the jurisdictional facet taking into consideration the stand and stance put forth by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative. Needless to say, the order shall be a speaking one. The adjudicating authority shall deal with the matter, as directed hereinabove within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
- 2011 (1) TMI 790 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Service tax liability - Recipient of service - the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association v. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the liability to pay service tax by the recipient of service is only from 18-4-2006, which judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2011 (1) TMI 748 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The question arises for consideration is the leviability of the service tax from a particular date, which falls within the phrase determination of right of tax - If that is so against such an order, the appeal lies under Section 35(L) of the Central Excise Act before the apex court, which is made applicable to the provisions of Service Tax - Appeal is rejected
- 2011 (1) TMI 722 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - outdoor catering services - the appeal relates to the determination of the rate of tax payable for the services rendered - All those matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Act - Appeal is rejected
- 2011 (1) TMI 721 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty - assessee was carrying on the business of providing taxi services - once the departmental officers informed him that any person owning or operating even with one vehicle would have to pay the service tax, they registered themselves during March, 2003 and obtained a registration on 26-3-2003 - there is no willful default on payment of such amount and hence, they are not liable to pay the penalty and requested for waiver of the penalty imposed - it is clear, that the assessee came to be constituted in April 2002 as a partnership firm - But once the authorities brought it to their notice, that the Act is applicable even to the person who owns one taxi, promptly they registered under the Act and from that day onwards, they were paying the service tax - the authorities in exercise of their discretion under Section 80 of the Act, which....... + More
- 2011 (1) TMI 716 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty - Revisional Authority initiated review proceedings against the said order and found that the reason given by the assessee is not a reasonable one and therefore the order of the Original Authority dropping the proceedings was set aside and imposed the penalty - it is not in dispute that the branch office at Bangalore was under the impression that the head office is paying the service tax on their behalf. When it was pointed out that no such payment is made, they got separate registration at Bangalore and paid the entire service tax with interest - The fact finding authority on appreciation of the entire material on record coupled with the fact that even before the issue of show-cause notice, the assessee has paid the service tax with interest, a case for wavier is made out - Appeal is dismissed
- 2011 (1) TMI 667 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund - Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 - Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax has issued second show cause notice dated 9-3-2010, proposing to reject the part of the claim for refund of excess tax on the ground that the Tribunal's order covers only the point of 'unjust enrichment' and does not cover the point of rejection of Rs. 4,00,754/- though the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the petitioner - The observations made in the show cause notice at Annexure-G that the Tribunal has considered only on the point of 'unjust enrichment' and does not cover the point of rejection, does not hold any water in view of the fact that the entire matter has been discussed and final order has been rendered - the writ petition is allowed
- 2011 (1) TMI 609 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - Tribunal felt the reason given for condoning the delay do not constitute a sufficient cause and therefore refused to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal - it is clear that there; is demand of payment of tax and for non-payment of tax within the time Stipulated, the appellant/assessee is liable to pay interest, penalty etc.; in accordance with law - it is settled law that an assessee is not liable to pay any tax unless the statute warrants the same, the said question to be gone into by appropriate fourm - it is always open to the respondent/revenue to proceed to recover the amount which is legitimately due in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed
- 2011 (1) TMI 461 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) - marketing / distribution of pharmaceutical products - commission agent outside India - Import of service - held that - from 18-4-2006 the service provided by a person who is outside the country and who has no fixed establishment or permanent address in the country, such a taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient of service had himself provided the service in India and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. Therefore, prior to 18-4-2006 the service tax was not payable by the recipient, in the event the service provider was outside the country and he had no permanent address or place of business within the country. - Not liable to tax during the relevant period.
- 2011 (1) TMI 356 - HIGH COURT ANDHRA PRADESH
Waiver of pre-deposit - Application for stay - commercial training or coaching service - The question of dispensing with pre-deposit would arise only when the duty demanded, or the penalty levied, would cause undue hardship to the assessee and not otherwise - It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed - show cause notice in this case has been issued on 8-9-2008 demanding service tax for the period 2003-2007 - It is also fact that the Govt. of India has brought in retrospective amendment to the definition of “Commercial Coaching and Training Centre” which could include the activity of the appellant and liability to service tax arises - It did not consider the aspect of undue hardship which must exist for exercising power under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
- 2011 (1) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Writ petition to prohibit the department from levying and collecting service tax on the commission received acting as agents for a number of south Indian Tea Estates in the marketing and sale of their tea overseas, under the head 'Business Auxiliary Services' - writ petition even before show cause notice – Held that: - revenue directed to issue a show cause notice and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the issues arising for his consideration relating to the payment of service tax by the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to substantiate its claims, by producing the necessary records. Thereafter, the respondent may pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the decisions of the supreme Court cited by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
- 2011 (1) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether provisions of Explanation under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2005 and Notification No.23/2005 ST, dated 7.6.2005, respectively, are ultravires of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g), 245 and 265 of the Constitution of India – Held that: - that the respondents are not entitled to levy service tax on the petitioners upto 17.4.2006, in respect of the services availed by them, as it is clear that Section 66A had been inserted in the Finance Act, 1994, by way of an amendment, by the Finance Act, 2006, only with effect from 18.4.2006, enabling the authorities concerned to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service.
- 2011 (1) TMI 52 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Simultaneous penalty u/s 76 and 78 – Held that: - Section 76 provides for penalty for failure to pay the amount while Section 78 provides for penalty for suppressing the taxable value. Section 78 is, thus, more comprehensive and provides for higher amount. Even if technically, the scope of sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been imposed under Section 78.
- 2011 (1) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund – Forced payment of service tax – deemed protest – period of limitation - A conspectus consideration of the facts only go to show that the payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal in having held that the first respondent made the payment under protest was well justified and the order of the Tribunal in holding that the application made by the first respondent/assessee for refund of the payment made in its application dated 18.08.2006 cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation.
- 2011 (1) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Failure to pay amount against stay order as pre deposit – cestat dismissed the appeal – Held that: - Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.