|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2971 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.
- 2022 (1) TMI 867 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Violation of the principles of natural justice - SVLDRS-1 Declaration - rejection of the application under the scheme without rendering any opportunity of hearing to the declarant - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the impugned orders have been passed without rendering any personal hearing to the petitioner. This Court in case of Thought Blurb [2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], after dealing with the provisions of the said scheme has held that summary rejection of the application under the said scheme without rendering any opportunity of hearing to the declarant would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The rejection of the application (Declaration) will lead to adverse civil consequences for the declarant as he would have to face consequences of enquiry or investigation or audit - Non-compliance to the princ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 866 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking to re-consider the petitioner’s request for benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - scheme was issued on 21/06/2020 demanding the entire amount of liability on the premise that the petitioner had not made any application under the Scheme - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the form submitted by the petitioner indicates that the respondent No.2 found that there was no specific quantification done as a result of which the petitioner has been denied benefit of the said Scheme. The petitioner had moved his application with the respondent No.2 but after making enquiries with the respondent No.3 which reported not receiving any application from the petitioner, his case has not been considered for benefit under the said Scheme. It is undisputed that such application under the Scheme was made to the respondent No....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 766 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - works contract services - taxable services or not - It is the case of the petitioner that the work carried out by the petitioner was not liable to tax during the period in dispute as the work involved "works contract" and was liable to service tax for the first time with effect from 01.07.2007 with the insertion of Section 65(105) (zzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, will determine the question of facts and arrive at a conclusion on law. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities under the Acts overburdened with litigation and ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 762 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Security service - Non-payment of service tax, inspite of collection of service Tax from its clients - suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is beyond comprehension as to what prevented the department to investigate in the year 2004 itself in contacting the end users on the service base so as to verify the authenticity of these invoice copies. It is trite that the deficiencies in the investigation or incorrect demand in the first show cause notice cannot be made good in the second show cause notice and subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time. The fact finding authority having taken cognizance of the facts has reached at a con....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Excisable goods or not - Superior Kerosene Oil - falls under Fourth schedule or not - seeking restoration of SVLDRS-1 declaration filed by the Petitioner - opportunity of personal hearing not provided - gross violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The principles laid down in THOUGHT BLURB VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] are to be considered by the Respondents while deciding the Petitioner’s case, as to, whether Superior Kerosene Oil which was the subject matter of the said declaration under the SVLDRS scheme, falls under Fourth schedule or not and whether the said product is at all excisable or not. The Petitioner had also relied upon the communication dated 26/11/2019 from Shri Navraj Goyal, OSD (CX) clarifying that only the Petroleum Crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit, ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 616 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Seeking to call for the records and directing the respondents to quash the impugned order - seeking issuance of discharge certificate in form SVLDRS-4 in respect of the arrears payable by the petitioner within a specified time frame - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, if the attempt made by the petitioner to make the payment on 30.06.2020, being the last date of making the payment has become successful, certainly, the petitioner would have been in a position to get the declaration under the scheme, but in that attempt, the petitioner has failed, even though genuinely that attempt was made by the petitioner. In order to show the bonafide, the next day also, such attempt had been made to make the payment and in fact, the payment has been debited from the account, only after 24 hours, t....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of writ petition - Validity of show-cause notice and pre-consultation notice which have been issued without application of mind - waiver of pre-deposit on merits to file appeal and stay on the impugned demand - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is appeal-able under Section-73 of the GST Act read with Section-84 of the Finance Act. There is no good ground made out to directly entertain this writ-application questioning the legality and validity of the order in original. It prima-facie appears from the reliefs prayed for that if an appeal is filed, then towards pre-deposit the writ-applicant is obliged to deposit 7.5% of the total demand. This may be a little difficult for the writ-applicant but that by itself is not sufficient for this Court to entertain this writ-application, more particularly, when there is an alternative re....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 451 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to Respondents to accept the application Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the Petitioner and to issue discharge certificate - Petitioner also seeks an opportunity to put forth his case/submissions and for a direction that, a reasoned Order be passed thereafter - requirement of opportunity of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The question, as to, whether the tax liabilities are already quantified or not as on 30th June 2019 itself is a matter of dispute raised by the Petitioner in Writ Petition and also in the application/declaration filed under the said Scheme by the Petitioner before the Authorities. If according to the Respondents the tax liabilities were not quantified and the Petitioner was not eligible, the Respondents ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner before pass....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 396 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Utilization of CENVAT Credit - payment of service tax for the purpose other than the ones defined under Section 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - recipient of service who is liable to pay the service tax under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S ARAVIND FASHIONS LIMITED [2011 (9) TMI 852 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the Cenvat Credit of input services utilized by the assessee towards the payment of service tax, it has been observed that the assessee therein was the recipient of service tax, the service provider was outside the country, in law he has been treated as a service provider and is levied tax, the liability to pay tax on the service which he has received was ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Export of service or not - Technical Testing and Analysis Services have been delivered outside India & used outside India - fulfilment of all the condition under Rule 3[1] of the Export rules or not - clinical tests were performed on volunteers in India - credit on Catering Services when the same do not have any nexus with the output services provided by them, viz., ‘Technical Testing and Analysis Service' - rent received by them for the period July 2007 to May 2008 - HELD THAT:- The adjudication of the dispute, whether the services provided by the volunteers [human beings] in India could be treated as export of services and is liable to tax on consideration received for providing such services would not come within the jurisdiction of this High Court. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
- 2022 (1) TMI 383 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - Construction of multi-level car parking adjacent to Airport - forming part of the Airport or not - HELD THAT:- The appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to present the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- 2022 (1) TMI 382 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - Toll Plaza - Lay-bys - Pedestrian/Cattle Crossing - Highway traffic management Systems - Administrative, operation and maintenance of Base camp - Highway lighting, landscaping road furniture and facility road side, as part of the road construction having no separate existence and are meant only for the purpose of road - extended period of limitation - works contract service - construction service - penalties - HELD THAT:- In COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, MYSORE PRESENTLY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW CUSTOMS MANGALORE VERSUS M/S. SUCH SILK INTERNATIONAL LTD., [2021 (10) TMI 1134 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (where one of us, the Hon’ble SSJ was a member) having considered this ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the other judgments holding t....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 209 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - overcoming the statutory period of limitation - seeking to recover service tax and penalty - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - Section 125 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- By virtue of the orders of the Supreme Court in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (11) TMI 387 - SC ORDER], the period of limitation for filing appeals stands condoned till 02.10.2021 from 15.03.2020. Therefore, petitioner can prefer an appeal against the order in original dated 27.11.2020 under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994; by seeking condonation of delay from 27.11.2020 till 02.10.2021. Petitioner has been contesting this writ petition from 12.10.2021 onwards. The period during which this writ petition has been pending from 12.10.2021 till today, can also be excluded while calculat....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 204 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Refund of service tax - refund sought on the premise that it had not been able to avail input tax credit on the said amount - opportunity for a hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This writ petition can be disposed of without going into the merits of the matter. There are no propose to enter into the merits of the controversy or to render any finding as to whether a notice for personal hearing was actually issued to the petitioner or not. The Learned Standing Counsel is justified in asserting that a person who failed to avail an opportunity cannot be heard to complain of a violation of the principles of natural justice. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that this is not a case where there has been a consistent default on the part of the petitioner in appearing for a personal hearing. Further opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner for a personal hearing - Petition allowed.
- 2022 (1) TMI 133 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Nature of activity - service or not - petitioner joined hands with two other owners and sold about 19.07 acres of land, of which, 5.43 acres belongs to the petitioner - case of petitioner is that the activity undertaken by the petitioner does not amount to service within the meaning of Section 65 (B) (44) which specifically excludes a transfer of title and goods or immovable property by way of sale, gift or in any other manner - applicability of mega exemption notification - place of provision of services rules - HELD THAT:- There is no merits in this writ petition. It is for the petitioner to convince the appellate authority to come to a conclusion that neither the petitioner has provided any taxable service within the meaning of Section 65 (B) (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 or that the service provided by the petitioner well within the n....... + More
- 2021 (12) TMI 1103 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal before the HC - Levy of service tax on commission received in advance, debit card income, Renting of immovable property, services rendered by the Jammu and Kashmir Branch, and business auxiliary services - Recovery of CENVAT Credit with interest and penalty - CESTAT [2020 (2) TMI 1579 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has set aside the demand - HELD THAT:- In the light of the provisions and the judgment [2011 (4) TMI 500 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], it is clear that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to determination of any question having relation to the rate of service taxes which is nothing but taxability of services for the purpose of assessment would lie before the Hon’ble Apex Court under Section 35L(b) of the Act and not to the High Court under Section 35G. The appeal is not maintainable under Section 35G before this Court. - Decided against the Revenue.
- 2021 (12) TMI 1052 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Time limitation - time barred assessment - no justification for passing the assessment order under the extended period of limitation - non-filing of return - challenge has been made on the ground that the assessment had become time barred; there was no justification for passing the assessment order under the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The above ground is not a sufficient ground for invoking our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is a statutory alternative remedy in the form of provision for appeal i.e., Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. That being the position, we decline to entertain the writ petition and relegate the petitioner to the forum of appeal, as provided under the statute. To enable the petitioner to file the appeal, we direct that for a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (12) TMI 626 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Benefit under Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - seeking direction to Respondents 2 to accept the SVLDRS Form 3 as generated for the Petitioner on 31-12- 19 and accept their balance payment and clear their case accordingly - HELD THAT:- Noticing the chronology of events and, the need of SVLDRS coupled with the fact that time and again the petitioner has been reminded of the availability of the scheme and the possibility of his taking recourse to the same and when he has chosen not to do so, attachment had been started, pursuant to the order passed in the order in original. This Court sees no reason for any indulgence in order in original dated 01.02.2019 passed by the respondent authority against the petitioner. There is no case of any breach of principles of natural justice, nor any violation on the part of the authority concerned. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (12) TMI 625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay is given or not - HELD THAT:- It is clear from Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 that the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal is of two months and if there is any delay caused in filing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and GST has the power to condone the delay, if the delay is not beyond the period of further one month from the expiry of the earlier period of two months, provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there is sufficient cause shown by the appellant. In the present case, the appeal was admittedly filed after expiry of total period of three months and therefore, it was well beyond the limitation period, including extended limitation period as prescribed under Section 85 and therefore, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (12) TMI 526 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Interpretation of statute - scope of Support Services of Business or Commerce - Applicability of 15/2006-ST dated 24th April, 2006 effective from 1st May, 2006 or the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 16th May, 2008 - whether the adjudicating authority was right in trying to import the fact of the definition which was inserted with effect from 2008 - 09 in sub-clause (zzzzj) in clause 105 of section 65 of the Act which, admittedly, came into effect only from 16th May, 2008? HELD THAT:- The said sub-clause has newly been inserted in the statute. The settled legal interpretation which has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions when amendment brought about to a statute by insertion of a new definition or a clause, such insertion will always be prospective in nature. In this regard, guidance provi....... + More
........
|
