|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 21 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.
- 2020 (12) TMI 1127 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking extension of time limit for compliance of action under the Custom Excise and Service Tax - Failure to make payment against the SVLDRS3 for the purpose of availing the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant should take up this issue with the Chairman, CBIC by filing an appropriate application or representation. Mr. Nainawati, the learned counsel has shown his inclination to deposit ₹ 15 lakh with the Registry of this Court to show his bona fide. We are of the view that the Registry of this Court should not be involved in such type of matters. Let the Chairman, CBIC look into the issue at the earliest and take an appropriate decision. This writ application stands disposed of
- 2020 (12) TMI 1126 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Quantification of service tax demand - Sabkha Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 opted - quantification prior to 30.06.2019 - it is the stand of the Department that such quantification was also served on the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Petitioner falls within the category of persons who is entitled to approach the authorities under the Scheme. Consequently, the order of rejection would have to be set-aside and the Respondents shall consider and pass orders on the application of the Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of the Scheme, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (12) TMI 1125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - Petitioner is foreman of chit fund business for the period from October 2014 to May 2015 - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. MARGADARSHI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD. ETC [2017 (7) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT] has held that service tax cannot be levied on the foreman of chit fund business for the period from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2015. Having regard to the said authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which holds the field, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order, which shall stand set aside - Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (12) TMI 1095 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - grievance of the petitioner is that the Authority without providing an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 127 of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme have rejected the petitioner’s application and have accepted the second application - HELD THAT:- The petitioner filed two applications, on 28.12.2019 and 14.01.2020 to avail the benefit of SVLDRS Scheme which was processed on the basis of correctness of “Tax Dues” declared in the application with reference to the amount of duty quantified in the reference document mentioned in the said declaration. As there were application wherein the amount of ‘Tax Dues’ declared by the declarant in their SVLDRS application were not matching with the a....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 914 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Determination of service tax liability on the approval of resolution plant under IBC - Seeking declaration that total liability of the petitioner to the respondent does not exceed ₹ 35,54,682.55 in accordance with the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench sanctioning the resolution plan of the petitioner under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - direction to the respondent not to appropriate an amount of ₹ 6,23,82,214.00 already recovered following the order in original dated 22.07.2020 - seeking direction to the respondent to refund an amount of ₹ 5,88,27,531.45 to the petitioner. HELD THAT:- As per the statement of objects and reasons which preceded the bill while being introduced in the parliament, there was no single law in India dealing with insolvency ....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 829 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - inability to make payment within the due date i.e. 05.03.2020 in terms of the Rule 7 of the Rules, 2019 - according to Mr. Tripathi, although his client was able to generate the challan for the payment having CIN No.2006259744, yet the portal reflected an error on the ICEGATE and therefore, the writ applicant was unable to make the payment and the fact is that, the amount as on date remains unpaid - HELD THAT:- Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 18.12.2020. Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant shall ensure that one set of the entire paper-book is furnished to Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India at the earliest, so that, by the next returnable date, Mr. Devang Vyas can seek appropriate instructions as to whet....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 702 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. It is not possible for this Court to e....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 638 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - adjustment of amount deposited by the petitioner - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is with respect to the amount determined by the designated authority under the aforesaid SVLDR Scheme. The petitioner represented before the designated authority in the matter of amount determined under the SVLDR Scheme and the designated authority has communicated the petitioner vide letter dated 08.09.2020 that the request for adjustment of ₹ 15,69,098/- in SVLDR Scheme was not considered since this amount was not entered in ST-3 Returns. That apart, the last date of payment under SVLDR Scheme was 30.06.2020 which has expired. The letter/order dated 08.09.2020 has not even been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition ....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 619 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of action of the DGCEI to initiate investigation against the Petitioner - non-payment of service tax - stand of NBCC is that the Respondent should inform the Petitioner as to what are PMC charges - Exclusion of period of stay from the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Right from inception, the case of the Department has been that in the agreements entered into by NBCC, a percentage of the project cost called as PMC charges was collected by NBCC. No service tax was being paid in respect of these PMC charges which led to the issuance of the show cause notices. The said Show Cause Notices were challenged by NBCC in the present writ petition related to PMC charges. Thus, the NBCC is well aware as to what are PMC charges. The stand in the reply clearly shows that the NBCC is feigning ignorance. This Court had permitted Director Gener....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Petitioner had presented the appeal before the Second Respondent which was beyond the maximum limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by the First Respondent - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. It would also not be possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the order of the Second Respondent, who has rightly refused to take that time barred appeal to file - Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (12) TMI 474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Petitioner had presented the appeal which was beyond the maximum limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by the First Respondent - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. It is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (12) TMI 418 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - failure to make payment by 30th June 2020 - Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws ordinance, 2020 - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the error is at the end of the petitioner’s agent i.e. petitioner’s bank. No fault can be attributed to the respondent no. 3/Designated Committee. Accordingly, the decision taken by the Designated Committee is in accordance with Section 127 (5) of the Finance Act 2019 read with section 7(iv) of the Taxation and Other Laws ordinance, 2020 - If the petitioner has any grievances with its bank, it shall be at liberty to proceed against the same in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the said controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
- 2020 (12) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT:- There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. Reliance can be placed in the case of ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER [1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - SVLDRS - rejected on the ground of ineligibility - quantification of service tax liability on or before 30.06.2019 - case of respondent is that petitioner was not eligible to make a declaration as the outstanding amount due to be paid by the petitioner was not determined upon adjudication on or before 30.06.2019 - section 125(1)(e) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- There is clear admission / acknowledgment by the petitioner about the service tax liability. The acknowledgment is dated 27.06.2019 i.e., before 30.06.2019 both in the form of letter by the petitioner as well as statement of its Director, Shri. Sanjay R. Shirke. In fact, on a pointed query by the Senior Intelligence Officer as to whether petitioner accepted and admitted the revis....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 283 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Grant of remission - grant of deduction of pre-deposit - validity of Paragraph 2(iv) of the impugned circular dated 25.09.2019 - vires of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 124 of The Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 or not - breach of provisions of Section 124 (2) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 or not - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the provisions of the Scheme, shows that the Scheme is a complete Code in itself. In substance, it is a scheme for recovery of duty/indirect tax to unlock the frozen assets and to recover the tax arrears at a discounted amount. Thus, “Sabka Vishwas Scheme”, although a beneficial scheme for a declarant, is statutory in nature, which has been enacted with the object and purpose to minimise the litigation and to realise the arrears of tax by way of set....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 234 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tax Relief as per Section 124 (1) (c) of Finance Act - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - (SVLDRS) - whether as per Section 124(2) of the Act, relief should be calculated after adjustment of tax already deposited or before adjustment of tax already deposited? - HELD THAT:- The case on hand falls under Section 123(e) of the Act. It means “Where an amount in arrears relating to the declarant is due, the amount in arrears”. The petitioner had already paid a sum of ₹ 3,59,73,729/-. The balance amount originally payable by the petitioner was only ₹ 1,51,17,635/-. That alone can be called as the amount in arrears. The petitioner's counsel would contend that the amount already paid should be considered as a deposit and it should be deducted only after relief is calculated on the entire tax liabil....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 194 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Benefit of SVLDRS scheme - due date of quantification of liability - Demand of Differential Service Tax - allegation against petitioners is that petitioner had shown lesser taxable value in the service tax returns to evade tax liability - Whether the quantification of the petitioners’ liability as communicated vide letter dated 27.12.2019 should be deemed to be quantification relating back to the earlier quantification dated 20.05.2019 or not? HELD THAT:- In the present case, the admitted position is that the original quantification made on 20.05.2019 was incorrect. A huge demand of more than ₹ 82 crores came to be raised towards the service tax and at that stage there was no Scheme in existence. The Scheme came into existence only w.e.f. 01.09.2019 and its benefit was available till 30.12.2019 for the assessees to apply. Duri....... + More
- 2020 (12) TMI 151 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - appropriate forum - mixed question of law - Levy of Service Tax - Services availed by the Bank viz., Indian Bank, Adyar, Chennai from the foreign parties for providing Performance Bank Guarantee in Iraq to the customer - HELD THAT:- The Appeals are disposed off with a liberty to the Appellant to withdraw the Writ Petition itself - appeal disposed off.
- 2020 (12) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - order not appealed, instead this petition filed beyond time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA & ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.
- 2020 (12) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-consultation before issuance of Show Cause Notice where the demand against the Assessee is likely to be above ₹ 50.00 Lakhs - Board's Instruction No.1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice itself is a procedure known to the Excise Law and other Tax Laws where the Assessee is called upon to show cause against the issues raised in the Show Cause Notice in terms of principles of natural justice or Audi Alteram Partem and the Assessee is expected to raise his objections and points in the form of reply to the Show Cause Notice before the Assessing Authority. Then, the Adjudicating Authority or the Assessing Authority is expected to decide those issues and objections and pass appropriate Adjudication Order. If the Assessee feels aggr....... + More
|
