Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2738 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.
- 2021 (1) TMI 861 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative and most efficacious remedy of filing an appeal - appealable order and statutory appeal - Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There cannot be any doubt that the impugned order is an appealable order and statutory appeal under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 lies before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. In the wake of availability of alternate remedy, this Court can entertain the writ petition in a very limited arena. For entertaining writ petition in the wake of alternate remedy, the petitioner has to demonstrate that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or in utter violation of principles of judicial just....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order has been challenged primarily on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed - HELD THAT:- Since the dispute pertains to the years 2009 to 2014, the respondent Commissioner of Central Excise is requested to dispose the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (1) TMI 806 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - allegation that no return had been filed by the Petitioner for the period from 1st April, 2016 to 30th September, 2016 - Petitioner contends that the decision of the Respondent to reject the Petitioner’s application is completely baseless, inasmuch as the Petitioner had indeed filed its return for the relevant period on 12th July, 2017 - HELD THAT:- There is no surviving factual controversy, as indeed the returns filed by the Petitioner are available with the Respondents. Certainly, the technical infraction at the end of the Respondent cannot be a ground to deprive the Petitioner the benefit of the Scheme. Thus, clearly, the ground on the basis of which the Petitioner’s application has been rejected does not survive, and is liable to be set-aside. There is no impediment ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of writ application - alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal is available - service tax on education related services - Gujarat Technological University Act, 2007 - HELD THAT:- This writ application should not be entertained as the writ applicant has an alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the impugned order-in-original under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. This writ application is disposed off without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case by relegating the writ applicant to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- 2021 (1) TMI 629 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - non-submission of pre-deposit - Section 35 F of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the appeal is a statutory appeal and the same is only rejected because of non-deposit of the amount required for entertaining the appeal per provisions of Section 35 F of the Finance Act, 1994, it is considered appropriate that one more opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner for depositing the amount as required by Section 35 F of the Finance Act for entertaining the statutory appeal on merits. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount as envisaged by Section 35 F of the Finance Act, 1994 towards pre-deposit for entertaining his statutory appeal. Said amount be deposited within a period of one month from today - petition disposed off.
- 2021 (1) TMI 441 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Selling of surplus power in Domestic Tariff Area and installing dedicated transmission lines into Domestic Tariff Area - surplus electricity supplied in the Domestic Tariff Area as per rule 47 of the Special Economic Zone Rules - to be treated as other business or not - reliance on permission dated 19.12.2006 and the Notifications dated 10.5.2007 and 19.6.2007 along with the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 - supply of the electricity to Domestic Tariff Area is beyond the Authorized Operations approved under the Act or not? - services received by the assessee was not shared between authorised operation in Special Economic Zone Unit and Domestic Tariff Area - whether expression “wholly consumed” referred to in Explanation (iii) of the proviso to para 2(a) of the Notification No. 17/2011-ST would be applicable to sharing business....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 385 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Eligibility of the petitioner or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit - quantification of the service tax dues of the petitioner for the related period was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT:- All that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will mean a written communication of the amount of duty payable including a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit. It is evident hat petitioner had given details of its outstanding service tax liability upto June, 2018 vide its intimation dated 14th September, 2018 addressed to respondent No.5. The notic....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 311 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - principal argument of the writ applicant is that without giving any opportunity to even file reply to the show cause notice, and that no opportunity of hearing was given even before passing the impugned order in original - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an adinterim order in his favour in terms of para 29(c) of the writ application. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 8th February 2021.
- 2021 (1) TMI 269 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Benefit under the SVLDRS - writ applicant would submit that, the issue involved is very limited and if this Court takes the view that his client is entitled to claim the benefit under the SVLDRS, the order in original passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara would pale into insignificance - HELD THAT:- As the other side is not ready with the matter, it is not possible for this Court to proceed today with the hearing of the main matter. As a last chance, post this matter on 20.01.2021. We are adjourning this matter with a distinct understanding that on the next date of hearing, if none appears for the respondent, this Court shall proceed to hear Mr. Sujit Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ applicant on merits and pass an appropriate order.
- 2021 (1) TMI 268 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of Clause (m) of Section 121 and Section 125 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 - the clause the assesseee ineligible based on an inquiry or summons has been given up - whether the Designated Committee should have given an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant before passing the impugned order dated 17.06.2020? - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the Designated Committee took the view that as an inquiry has been initiated pursuant to the summons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the declaration of self assessment cannot be accepted. Let Notice for final disposal be issued to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2021.
- 2021 (1) TMI 267 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Determination of amount of pre-deposit before filing an appeal or Total amount as deposited earlier to be adjusted with Declaration of tax - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case could there be a dispute on the Service Tax deposited by the petitioner, and if there cannot be any dispute in this regard, would the petitioner upon reading the provisions of Sections 123(a)(i) and 124(2) of SVLDR Scheme, be entitled to Tax Relief thereunder which would absolve the petitioner from paying further amounts? - HELD THAT:- The SVLDR Scheme contemplates “Tax Relief” as detailed in Section 124: Section 124(2) stipulates that the ‘Tax Relief’ shall be calculated subject to the condition that any deposit during enquiry or investigation or audit shall be deducted....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 266 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - managing car and two wheeler parking in a public place while serving public - N/N. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 - HELD THAT:- Reading of the clause Paragraph 24 of the notification 25/2012 vide Annexure-R2 read with the statement of objections filed by the second respondent cited supra, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption in payment of service tax, for the reasons that petitioner is rendering service to general public in permitting them to park the vehicles for a certain period of time and collecting fee. In other words, petitioner is rendering public services, therefore, service tax is payable. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (1) TMI 104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of declaration on the ground that “as per report of the division vide letter dated 13.01.2020, no duty amount has been declared in return as payable but not paid - HELD THAT:- The admitted facts of the present case are that the petitioner has filed return under the service tax law prior to 30th June, 2019 and deposited the amount of duty along with the returns which was filed belatedly. Therefore, clause (e) of Section 123 read with clause (c) of Section 121 of the SVLDR Scheme is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The circular relied by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the circulars dated 25th September, 2019 and 29th October, 2019 relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is referabl....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy) Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 - delay in payment due to adjustment of amounts paid by the insurance company against the payment under the scheme - stance of the respondents that on a technicality of payment under a separate head, the compensation payable by the insurance company would not be adjusted against the dues under the scheme, is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the scheme - HELD THAT:- The dues payable by the Petitioner has now been crystallised at ₹ 2,56,91,472/-. On payment of this amount, under the scheme, the Petitioner would have cleared its entire liability to the central excise authorities. The compensation being paid by the 6th Respondent is ₹ 4,60,73,182/-. This would mean that the entire due of the Department is being cleared and a surplus of ₹ 2,03,81,710/- wou....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme, 2019 - rejection of declaration on the ground of quantification of the liability before the prescribed date - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the declaration filed by the petitioner in Form SVLDRS-1 that the petitioner has indicated the liability/duty is in a sum of ₹ 95,94,517/-. This figure comes about after scrutiny of records and in terms of the Show Cause Notice dated 9.12.2019. If there was quantification in terms of the Final Reminder as now asserted by the petitioner, in Form in SVLDRS-1 the petitioner should have mentioned in the relevant column the amount indicated in the Final Reminder dated 15.11.2018. The fact that the petitioner mentions the Tax liability/ Demand in Form SVLDRS-1 as ₹ 95,94,517/-, an amount which is quantified in terms o....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - permission to make payment physically or electronically under the SVLDRS scheme - although the writ applicant was able to generate the challan, yet was not able to make the payment, as the portal reflected an error on the ICEGATE - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant should take up this matter with the Chairman, CBIC at the earliest by filing an appropriate application or representation - As a writ Court, it has its own limitations, but if the writ applicant is ready and willing to deposit the requisite amount, then, the Chairman, CBIC should look into the matter and try to resolve the dispute. Ultimately, the revenue is going to be benefited with the amount, that the writ applicant may deposit for the purpose of seeking the benefit under the Scheme, if found eligible. This writ applicat....... + More
- 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