Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2548 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.
- 2020 (1) TMI 944
Jurisdiction - appointment and jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers post GST - Validity of SCN issued demanding service tax post GST - power to inquiry / investigate / audit - Repealing of Chapter V of Finance Act of 1994 - Vires of Notification dated 09.06.2017 - Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - recovery of short paid money alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Rule 3 in general and Sub Rule (2) of the said Rule in particular makes it clear that the Board in its discretion can specify the jurisdictional limits of the Excise Officers, for the purpose of the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder; this apart, Sub Rule (3) is structured in such a way that any Central Excise Officer may exercise the powers vested in his sub-ordinate officer; the impugned Notification thus needs to be interpreted in the light ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 899
Levy of service tax - construction works - grant of reimbursement of service tax - petitioner would contend that he has already paid service tax on the works contract executed by him and that therefore, as per the norms he is eligible to get reimbursement of the service tax paid - HELD THAT:- It is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent will take up the matters raised in Ext.P8 for consideration and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will render a considered decision thereon on the matters raised therein, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 to 8 weeks, from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (1) TMI 845
Benefit of reduced penalty u/s 78 - failure to pay within stipulated time - service tax and interest has already and duly been paid even before issuance of the show cause notice - Appellant had also sought option to pay 25% (reduced) mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Act as the said option was not given to the appellant at the lower levels - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellant had failed to deposit 25% of the imposed penalty before the issuance of show cause notice or within 30 days of finalization of demand by the adjudicating authority - learned tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that appellant could not be granted option to pay 25% (reduced) mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (1) TMI 505
Rectification of mistake - furnishing of copy of the multimodal certificate issued by the Director-General of Shipping - allegation of mistake on the part of its consultant in enclosing the original certificate only for the period commencing from September 2014 - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the petitioner has given partial relief on the strength of the renewal is a certificate for the period after September 2014. Since there is a bona fide mistake and but for the non-filing of the original certificate of registration issued to the petitioner for the earlier period, the demand would not have been confirmed. I’m therefore convinced that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. Merely because renewal certificate for the earlier period was not produced earlier cannot mean that the order cannot be rectified under section 74 of the....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 432
Refund claim - time limitation - the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue appears to be correct and there seems to be no discussion on the issue of limitation - HELD THAT:- The present Appeal disposed off with liberty to the Revenue to raise the said issue again before the learned Tribunal and we expect the learned Tribunal to pronounce upon the said issue after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
- 2020 (1) TMI 199
Validity of adjudication proceeding initiated by the impugned SCN - Time limitation - Interpretation of statute - Section 73(4B)(a)&(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - main ground is that the adjudication proceeding had become barred by limitation in view of the limitation period of one year for adjudication from the date of the show-cause notice prescribed under Clause (b) of sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the mandate of law as well as sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, this Court is of the view that a statutory authority has to decide the show-cause notice within the time prescribed wherever it is possible to do so. In the present case, from the respondents’ list of dates, it is apparent that it was certainly possible for the adjudicating authority to adjud....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 198
Club and association service - principles of mutuality - collects subscription and usage charges from its members - levy of service tax - Since, levy of service tax on service provided by club/association was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994, it was the view of the Service Tax Department that clubs/associations in the country were liable to pay the service tax for the services rendered by them to their members - clubs contented that there was no provision of service by applying principle of mutuality. HELD THAT:- The present writ petition can be disposed in the light of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of West Bengal and Others vs Calcutta Club Ltd and in Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Another vs Ranchi Club Ltd, [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] - At the time when said ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 36
Re-assessment - Validity of order passed u/s 73(1) of the Act, passed by the Assistant Commissioner - vires of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order in original passed under Section 73(1) of the Act, dated 17/03/2016 is the re-assessment order. The said approach of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Section 72 deals with the Best judgment assessment - HELD THAT:- The language employed in the provisions of Section 73 as it stood during the relevant period does not contemplate for an order of assessment, a condition precedent to invoke Section 73, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In other words, Best judgment assessment order passed under Section 72 of the Act, is not sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the Act. T....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 7
Classification of services - Business Auxiliary Services or not - cleaning and sweeping of public roads and streets in the city of Chennai as well as collection and transportation of municipal solid wastes at designated places in the city - HELD THAT:- The activity of 'cleaning' has been defined and understood to apply qua commercial and industrial as well as related buildings and premises only. The activity of cleaning in relation to all other premises excepting those specifically defined, such as public roads and streets in this city, stand outside the ambit of the definition - thus, the receipts from cleaning activities carried out by the petitioner on public roads and streets stand excluded from the ambit of tax, even at the threshold. The impugned SCN which seeks to bring to tax receipts from cleaning activities carried out b....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1130
Adjustment to the excess payment of service tax with the short paid tax - Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- without specifically mentioning or referring to the relevant conditions for granting the benefit of adjustment in respect of the excess payment, the Tribunal simply observed that failure to comply with certain procedural conditions cannot be a ground to deny substantial benefit and that in principle, there can be no objection to the adjustment of service tax short paid and excess paid. But here again, it is to be noted that the said finding and reasoning were given by the Tribunal with reference to “some chart” prepared by the Appellant there, who is Respondent herein, as to the remittances revealing the excess payment. It is also evident from paragraph-3 of the order that, such a ‘chart&rsquo....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1129
Service of garnishee notice u/s 87 - Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - case of assessee is that without issuing such show-cause notice under Section 73, impugned garnishee notices could not have been issued under Section 87 (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Non-payment of service tax - permission to allow payment of service tax dues in installments - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 73, would go to show that in the circumstances enumerated in Sub-Section (1) thereof the competent authority may within 18 months (and since 01.04.2017, 30 months), serve a show cause notice upon the assessee as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. However, in a case of fraud the period for issuance of such notice would stand extended to 5 years. After service of show cause notice, if any representation is made by the assessee the same....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1067
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of application under SVLDRS, 2019 - rejection mainly on the ground that the designated committee after due consideration of the definition of the word “quantified” as provided under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 observed that as the tax dues were not intimated, therefore, the same was not quantified for the period involved - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the order impugned dated 24/10/2019 is the unilateral decision taken by respondent No.2 sans providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any order passed by the quasi judicial authority adversely affecting the rights of the parties should be strictly in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is appropriate to provide an oppor....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1052
Short payment of service tax/ reversal of CENVAT credit - validity of summon issued in furtherance of inquiry/ investigation proceedings - Chapter (V) of Finance Act, 1994 repealed - Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed by the petitioner on Mega Cabs [2016 (6) TMI 163 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is misplaced, firstly, on account of the fact that the said decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court; and, secondly, on account of the fact that the Division Bench only declared that Rule 5A(2) as amended, to the extent that it authorized the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production of documents therein on demand as ultra vires the Finance Act. It does not interfere with the power of the authorities vested by Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5A and the power of the respondents to conduct investigation and inquiry. Petition dismissed.
- 2019 (12) TMI 1010
Penalty under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - period of limitation for raising demand -Tribunal has failed to consider the question of limitation under sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The question of imposition of penalty would arise only after the decision of the question on such plea of limitation. According to the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Tribunal has to first judge as to whether the case of the assessee is covered by proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. After recording the findings on the aspects so covered by the proviso, the question of limitation as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act will have to be decided. It is only thereafter the question of maintaining or ....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 892
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - liability of excise duty - job-work - N/N. 214/86-CE(NT) dated 25.03.1986 - HELD THAT:- In view of instructions dated 22.08.2019 (A-1) issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in exercise of power conferred by Section 35(R) of the Central Excise Act made applicable to the Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, whereby the monetary limit for filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Courts has been revised to ₹ 1 Crore and these instructions will apply to the pending cases as well as duty involved in this appeal is ₹ 34 lacs, Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. The instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (12) TMI 891
Refund of service tax incorrectly paid - rented premises being used for agriculture purpose was exempt from payment of Service Tax - refund was rejected on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- It emerged that wrongly paid Service Tax could only be refunded to FCI upon showing that the burden was not passed on to the consumer i.e. Department of Food and Supplies; and that HAFED would have to release the withheld amount equal to the service tax element incorrectly paid with the Tax Authorities. Accordingly, Mr.Sourabh Goyal, Counsel for the Revenue was directed to work out the mechanism for refund of aforesaid amount from one government institution to the other. Simultaneously while directing FCI/HAFED to bring the withheld lease amount, the matter was adjourned to 24.9.2019. Revenue has produced a copy of letter dated 13.12.2019 wri....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 890
Valuation - inclusion of reimbursable expenses - contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI of the labour provided by the appellant to his clients - whether included in the gross amount or not - Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Non-speaking order - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The controversy involved in the present case duly stands answered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT] and the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in SECURITY AGENCIES ASSOCIATION, M/S. RELIANCE SECURITY AGENCY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 889
Dispute between parties in relation to proof of services rendered and service tax liability - Seeking help from service tax department to prove its case - Praying for Issuing of a subpoena upon the Principal Chief Commissioner, Service Tax - production of authenticated copy of Form ST-3 for the financial year 2012-2013 - case of the defendants is that the majority of the bills which the plaintiff claims to be due and payable are either fictitious or have already been cleared twice over. Whether the plaintiff will suffer or is likely to suffer any prejudice, if production of the document is called for? HELD THAT:- The view of this Court to that question is clearly in the negative. It is nobody’s case that the document, if produced, would establish that no service tax amounts have been deposited by the plaintiff to the account of the ....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 858
Works Contract Composition Scheme - works contract services of Supply and Installation of Electrical Equipments - abatement under N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in the order of the learned Tribunal, which could deny the benefit of the Composition Scheme to the Assessee and therefore, the order of remand passed by the learned Tribunal on 01.06.2018 directing the Assessee to go for regular assessment instead of Composition Scheme merely because the option was not conveyed to the Department on the part of the Assessee in writing, even though the Revenue had not prescribed any format for the same, could not be a valid ground to deny the benefit to the Assessee. The failure on the part of the learned Tribunal to do so resulted in miscarriage of justice and unnecessary litigation brought before this Court firstly....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 857
Penalty - Assessee has admittedly paid the service tax with interest, but the delay in payment of the said service tax occurred on account of financial crisis of the respondent Assessee - HELD THAT:- The fact that the Assessee paid the service tax along with the interest in question, soon upon getting information from the Department, as noted by the Tribunal, setting aside of the penalty on the ground of delay in depositing the penalty was justified and therefore, the learned Tribunal has not erred in setting aside such penalty imposed upon the Assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.