|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 17 of 17 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 and Decision etc.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1188
Rejection of declaration in Form-SVLDRS-1 - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is the Petitioner’s case that Petitioner never received the said communication of rejection of the declaration on 20 March 2020 either from Respondent No.4 or from the Designated Committed, prior to the 4th Respondent’s letter dated 17 February 2022, by which the letter dated Nil March, 2020 rejecting the declaration was enclosed - HELD THAT:- For being eligible under the SVLDR Scheme, a written communication of the amount of duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit would be a quantification on or before 30 June 2019, which need not be determined upon completion of investigation by issuance of Show Cause Notice or upon adjudication. It is not in dispute that on 15 February 2018, ....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1187
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Respondents had contended that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy under the statute of filing an appeal - Demand of differential service tax - HELD THAT:- The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 states that instructions have been taken and the Commissioner who had passed the impugned order has expressed that there was an error in taking view and the decision in the case of M/S GO BINDAS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, (NOIDA) [2019 (5) TMI 1487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] will have to be kept in mind and dealt with, and cannot be ignored. In light of the stand taken by the Respondents, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29 January 2021 passed by Respondent No.2. The proceeding stands restored to file of Respondent No.2, and it will be decided as per law.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1186
Rejection of Petitioner’s application for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - absence or inadequacy of reasons as to why the Petitioner’s application for the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was rejected - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the cases at hand, either there are no remarks or cryptic unclear remarks. The Respondents have filed exhaustive replies seeking to place on record the reasons. Therefore, it is for the first time in this Court an adjudication will have to take place on the basis of replies filed. Such position cannot be countenanced. The Respondents cannot be permitted to abdicate their duty to fill up the Remarks column in SVLDRS-3 in a meaningful manner. The failure to do so is adding to the already cr....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1143
Interpretation of statute - meaning of expression ‘tax dues’ occurring in Section 124 (2) of the FA - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 - case of the Petitioners throughout has been that for the purpose of Section 124 (2) FA, which applies to the SVLDR Scheme, it had already paid in excess of the amount shown as payable - HELD THAT:- When the legislature usages two different expressions viz. 'duty' and ‘tax dues’, it is obviously done with a purpose. If the intention was that these expressions are interchangeable then the wording of Section 124(1) (a) FA would read differently. The tax dues in the present case referred to not just the duty amount, but duty plus interest or to put differently the total amount of duty payable which would include the main duty component and the inter....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1049
Constitutional Validity - Chargeability of service tax on sale and supply of electricity - Section 66D(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the impugned Notification No. 32/201 0-Service Tax, dated 22-6-2010 - petitioner’s challenge to Section 66Dk of the Act is premised on the basis that placing the service relating to transmission or distribution of electricity by electricity transmission or distribution utility would mean that consumption of electricity is chargeable to service tax - HELD THAT:- It is relevant to note that by virtue of the said notification, the Government of India has “exempted taxable services provided to any person by a distribution licensee, a distribution franchisee or any other person by whatever mean called as authorized to distribute the power under the Electricity Act, 2003, from the scope of Section 66....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 1048
Demand made by issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 - demand on the ground that the tax dues comprise of only duty amount and, therefore, only deposit of any stage is allowed under Section 124 (2) of the Finance Act, 2019 pertaining to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, paid an amount of Rs.1,49,35,618/- electronically out of which a sum of Rs.1,09,06,948/- was deposited under the Accounting Code 00441480 as tax receipts and Rs.40,28,670/- was deposited under Accounting Code 00441481 towards interest under other receipts. That, during the pendency of the show cause notice, Petitioner had also requested for change of Accounting Code in respect of the interest amount to the Accounting Code relevant to tax receipts which r....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 993
Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - availability of rebate in arrears of tax - HELD THAT:- There is no challenge to the constitutionality of this Scheme. Reliance is placed by counsel for the Revenue on a decision of Apex court in the case of M/S. YASHI CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] where it was held that The High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. This Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken by Apex Court - Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 941
Exemption from service tax - works contract service - applicability of Clause-14 (a) of Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Government of India - HELD THAT:- As per Clause-14.3 of the Circular under No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, at least three opportunities of personal hearing should be granted by the authorities before the final adjudication of a matter. In the present case, only two opportunities were given o n 16.09.2022 and 29.09.2022. Even after communication of the order dated 21.09.2022 via email on 18.10.2022, the respondent No.3 did not provide the third opportunity to the petitioner in an illegal, arbitrary and high handed manner - the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.3, apart from being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, is apparently perverse and fra....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 940
Rejection of Application for condoning the delay in filing an appeal - sale of space or time for advertisement - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner stated that discussions & deliberation were made in the Cabinet on the representations of the Railways for exemption from service tax liability and as result of the same, an amendment has been introduced in the Act of 1994 by incorporating section 99 in the Finance Bill-2013. This information was circulated to all the Zonal General Managers of the Indian Railway by the Ministry of Railway through Railway Board by Circular dated 5 March 2013. The Petitioner has stated that thereafter, the Respondents also did not pursue the demand raised by them under the show cause notice presuming that exemption is granted to the Railways for the period in question. When the Petitioner received the demand, the Pe....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 939
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - declaration of the petitioners rejected by not issuing Discharge Certificate by the Designated Committee under SVLDRS - rejection on the ground that the petitioners did not make payment within the stipulated time as per Rule 7 of the Rules - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the bank statement furnished by the petitioners, it clearly shows that amount of 1,51,15,378/- was debited from the account of the petitioners on 30.06.2020. Therefore, for all intent and purpose once bank account of the petitioners is debited, it amounts to making payment by the petitioners. Even the payment uploaded status provided by the ICICI bank of the petitioners shows that payment was uploaded by the bank on 30.06.2020 at 18:28 hours and 20:23 hours and file status also shows that the same was processed. Therefore, it....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 807
Exemption from Service Tax - works contract service other than commercial nature to the Government, local bodies, statutory authorities, etc. - contention of the petitioner is that the service tax was exempted for the service rendered to the Government for public utility by notification No.25 of 2012 by the Central Government - HELD THAT:- The Honourable Division Bench, in M/S. RAJU CONSTRUCTION, [2022 (12) TMI 1336 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], dismissed the said batch of writ petitions with certain observations - it was held that Services provided by these petitioners were “declared services”. Thus, the services provided by these petitioners would have been liable tax at 12% on the taxable value and later at 14% vide Notification No.14/2015-ST, dated 19.05.2015 with effect from 01.06.2015 but for the exemption vide Entry 12(a), (c) ....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 743
Validity of adjudication of SCN after much delay - inordinate delay - grant of centralized service tax registration - Divisional Officer was obliged to send intimation to the respective jurisdictional Service Tax office-in-charge of the erstwhile branch to transfer the relevant records to its office for taking further action and to update the records, but despite the same, the files pertaining to the said show cause cum demand notice were not transferred to the Respondent No.2 - notice of hearing was issued around eleven years after the date of the said show cause cum demand notice - HELD THAT:- The Respondents have not acted in the manner as required by law. True that, while the Respondents’ right in law to initiate proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Act can never by disputed, at the same time, they do not have the ....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 594
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Proper service of order - appeal has been dismissed on grounds of limitation as being beyond the statutory limit of 60 days prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also beyond the condonable period of 30 days under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 the statutory limit of 60 days is prescribed for preferring an appeal. The delay if any is condonable up to 30 days beyond the period of 60 days under Section 85(3A) of the Act. Two facts emerge from the pleadings on records which cannot be ignored: first that the certified copy of the impugned order was provided to the appellant on 19th December 2020 by the Adjudication Branch of Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi which means that by that time the rela....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 547
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - Para-2 of the Circular dated 17th August, 2011 - Whether the expression Monetary limit would essentially refer to the excise duty involved and would not include the penalty or interest amount? - appropriate forum - HELD THAT:- Para-2 of the Circular dated 17th August, 2011 clarifies that the expression “Monetary limit” would essentially refer to the excise duty involved and would not include the penalty or interest amount. Since the basic duty involved is below Rs.1Crore, the appeal is certainly below the monetary limit. Further, whether the service carried out by the Appellant is Cargo Handling Services or mining service is essentially a classification dispute. Consequently, following the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS SCOTT WILSON KIRKPATRIC....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 546
Benefit of SVLDRS - Revenue filed the appeal after the expiry of limitation of Scheme - Rejection of declaration filed by the petitioner under Section 125 (2) of SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 , in Form SVLDRS-1 - jurisdiction of Designated Committee in terms of Section 126 of SABKA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) SCHEME, 2019 - extension of benefit by issuance of Discharge Certificate to the petitioner after accepting the amount which the petitioner is liable to deposit under the Scheme of 2019. HELD THAT:- It appears that from bare perusal of Section 126 as well as Section 127 of the SVLDRS Scheme and its corresponding Rules being Rule 6 of SVLDRS Rule, it would transpires that the Designated Committee constituted under the Scheme was only required to verify the correctness of the declaration filed by the dec....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 545
Invocation of extended period of limitation - sum and substance of the objection raised by the appellants is that for the financial years 2011-2012 to 2014- 2015, show cause notice was issued, which culminated in an order of adjudication and the matter is now pending before the Tribunal at the instance of the appellants and in such circumstances, for the very same allegation for the subsequent period, i.e 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. HELD THAT:- Once a preliminary objection is raised on the question of jurisdiction, it is but appropriate for the adjudicating authority to deal with the said issue as first amongst the several issues while passing the order of adjudication. However, the adjudicating authority has adopted a reverse process by deciding the merit first and then dealt with the....... + More
-
2023 (1) TMI 347
Rejection of the form of declaration made by the applicant no.1 firm from time to time under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 launched by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 - seeking direction to accept form of declaration under Section 125 of the Act and undertaken the process of verification by designated committee and to issue the statement under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 127 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that this Court has already finally adjudicated in M/S. SUNSHINE CORPORATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2022 (2) TMI 1322 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], no point will be served in allowing the additional prayer in this disposed of petition nor can this be done. The Court virtually has become functus-officio and again, the attention of the Court ought to have been drawn at the relevant point of time to this a....... + More
|
