Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2011 2011 2011 (9) Service Tax - 2011 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property 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 Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 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 141 to 145 of 145 Records

• 2011 (9) TMI 102 - CESTAT, DELHI
  

  Money Changers - Money Transfer services from persons located in one country to persons located in any country - PML argues that it is providing services to Western Union situated abroad with whom PML is having a contract for providing services and PML gets its remuneration from Western Union. Further the ultimate beneficiary of the service is the person situated abroad who approaches the office of Western Union abroad and who pays for the services. So this is a case of Export of Services as laid down in Export of Services Rules, 2005. - The Revenue contests that the activity of making payment to the recipient in India is the only service which PML is rendering and this service is rendered in India. The receiver of its service is the person receiving the remittance in India. The Revenue argues that no part of the service done by PML is exported.

  Two member bench of the CESTAT have different opinions and gave detailed and elaborated reasons to justify their stand regarding classification, export of services and applicability of expended period of limitation.

  Difference of opinion - Matter referred to larger bench.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 93 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Sharing of revenue - support services of business or commerce - As per the sub concession agreement, MICT is to make the payment to the appellants as water upfront charges, royalty at the ate of 10% of the total revenue per annum and profit sharing, by whatsoever name called. - Held that:- infrastructure development by the appellants was an obligation on their part created under the agreement between them and Government of Gujarat, and it cannot be held the same was primarily and basically for MICT. The appellants have been given the right to develop Mundra Port and it was for the development of port that such infrastructure facilities were being created by them. - no services, falling under the category of support services of business or commerce, were being provided by the appellants to MICT.

  Freight & terminal sharing from Railways - As per agreement entered by the appellants with North Western Railways, they have laid down the railways lines for the running of the railways. As per the new policy, the cost of laying down of railways lines, instead of being borne by the Government of India, is to be borne by the private parties. The Railways operates the said railways and after recovering all the operation cost, pays balance amount to the investors.- Held that:- it is the railways who have provided services to the appellants. Similarly, maintenance of the assets which are admittedly assets of the appellants does not amount to providing any business support services to the railways. - not liable to service tax.

  Vacant land - held that:- it is use of the vacant land, which stands provided by the appellants to various lessees alongwith the facilities, the same would not fall even within the taxable services of rent of immovable property. The demand on this count is accordingly not sustainable.

  Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit - Exempted service or non taxable service - the appellant took plea that they are not providing taxable as well as exempted services. The services which are considered to be exempted are, in fact, are non taxable services. In such a case, the provisions of Rule 6(3) (c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not get invoked. - Held that:- It is not being disputed the excess utilization of credit was in the knowledge of the Revenue, inasmuch, ST-3 returns were being filed by the appellants. Further, there could be some scope of entertaining the bonafide that inasmuch the appellants are not providing the taxable as well as exempted services, the entire credit was available to them for utilization. - Demand set aside in view of of the provisions of section 73 and section 80 of the Act.

  Services provided to SEZ units - payment of 8% - Held that: Board's circular No. 105/8/08 dated 16.9.08 clarifies the issue of payment of service tax applicable on taxable services provided by the SEZ unit except such services which are exempted by Notification No.04/04-ST dt.31.3.04, is apt. If the services provided to SEZ unit are exempted services they are required to pay an amount of 8% of the value of exempted service in terms of the provision of Rule 6(3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Demand upheld on this issue.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Service tax demand - Service of commercial training and coaching - The dispute relates to the fees collected from the students during the period of April, May and June 2003 - The period involved in the present appeal is the initial period of introduction of coaching services to the service tax and created a lot of confusion - Even in respect of the fee collected prior to the introduction of the services, the Board s circular was issued only on 5.11.2003 laying down that service tax has to be calculated on pro rata basis - Also note that there was audit on 2004 and a lot of correspondence was exchanged between the appellant and the Revenue, in spite of that, Show Cause Notice was issued only on 20.7.2006 - Thus, fully agree with the finding of the authorities that the demand is barred by limitation - Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected on the above ground itself.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 75 - SC ORDER
  

  Renting of immovable property - Prayer for interim relief - Permission is granted to the petitioners before the High Court to file individual applications for interim relief - no coercive steps shall be taken against the said petitioners for recovery of arrears of service tax due on or before 30th September, 2011 - no stay for future liability towards service tax with effect from 1st October, 2011 is concerned

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of Service Tax on renting of immovable property – Held that: - the imposition of service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) read with Section 66 is not a tax on land and building which is under Entry 49 of List II. What is being taxed is an activity, and the activity denotes the letting or leasing with a purpose, and the purpose is fundamentally for commercial or business purpose and its furtherance. - Once there is a value addition and the element of service is involved, in conceptual essentiality, service tax gets attracted and the impost gets out of the purview of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and falls under the residuary entry, that is, Entry 97 of List I. - the decision in the first Home Solution case (2009 (4) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT) does not lay down the law correctly and therefore overruled.

  Amendment with retrospective effect – held that: - It is worth noting that the Parliament, keeping in view the first Home Solution case, substituted sub-clause (zzzz) in the present incarnation and gave retrospective effect to cure the deficiency. It is well settled in law that it is open to the legislature to pass a legislation retrospectively and remove the base on which a judgment is delivered.

  ---

1 ....45678