Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax 2021 2021 2021 (5) Service Tax - 2021 (5) 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 21 to 24 of 24 Records

• 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 dealership agreement and the petitioner may have to be conform to certain business standards, if read as a whole, one can come to the safe conclusion that the relationship between the parties was one of seller and buyer on principal to principal basis.

  Analysis of the documents referred to in the adjudication order to be done - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has not read the document as a whole but instead gave undue emphasis to certain individual clauses occurring in the agreement - the finding of the authority that the relationship between the parties is not on principal to principal basis is clearly unreasonable.

  All the decisions were actually brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority has chosen to disregard them on the ground that the revenue has filed appeal before the Supreme Court questioning some of the decisions. It is admitted that no interim order has been granted by the Supreme Court. It is well settled that merely because a matter is pending before the higher forum, such pendency will not take away the precedential value of the appealed decision. The adjudicating authority ought to have followed the Tribunal decisions which clearly support the stand of the petitioner. The aforesaid Tribunal decisions were binding on the authority.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 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 petitioner also - The department obviously knew that the petitioner had not paid any tax for the period preceding October, 2004. Therefore, nothing stopped the department from issuing a show cause notice immediately thereafter - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 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 compliance with Rule 2(g) of the said notification - HELD THAT:- When the debit made by the appellant as evidenced by the ST-3 returns is considered, it would show that both clauses 2(h) as well as 2(g) has been complied. For these reasons, it is found that the rejection of the refund claim for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017 is not sustainable.

  The appeals are allowed and the Refund Sanctioning Authority is directed to process the refund claims on merits - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 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.

  ---

12