Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax HC Service Tax - HC This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions 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 ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 3152 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 and Decision etc.

• 2022 (12) TMI 311
  
  Condonation of inordinate delay - sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay or not - HELD THAT:- It is not clear as to whether the appellant had placed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bidhannagar CGST & CX Division dated 10th April, 2019 accepting the classification as adopted by the appellant in respect of the specified services. In the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 4th February, 2021, there is no indication as regards the submission, which were made by the appellant. Though we do not fully approve of the conduct of the appellant in not pursuing the matter in a time bound manner, considering the fact that the present claim for refund is for the subsequent period, i.e., from October, 2008 to December, 2008, we are of the view that this aspect of the matter can be ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 310
  
  Condonation of delay of 7 days has occurred in filling the restoration application - non-removal of office objections - HELD THAT:- In the totality of facts and circumstances, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 7 days. Delay of 7 days iss condoned. Recall order - HELD THAT:- It is trite that the technicalities should not come in way in permitting the party to agitate the case on merits before the court of law. It would be proper that the applicant appellant is permitted to contest appeal on merits - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 236
  
  Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was ready to pay the amount under SVLDR Scheme - respondent No.3 have proceeded to issue the impugned Communication rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under the SVLDR Scheme - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned Communication at Annexure - A will clearly indicate that the same is violative of principles of natural justice, in as much as no reason or sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the said Communication. The impugned Communication is also unreasoned, non-speaking, laconic and cryptic order without any application of mind and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned Communication deserves to be quashed. So also, a perusal of the impugned Communication will indicate that the same is contrary to the Ci....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 139
  
  CENVAT Credit - input services or not - construction of immovable properties - works contract services - Section 2(1)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- An identical issue stands dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, DELHI-III VERSUS M/S BELLSONICA AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA P. LTD. [2015 (7) TMI 930 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - In the aforesaid case the assessee had availed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on civil work of constructing a plant/factory in the premises, namely, the manufacturing plant and for rental of the immovable property leased by it on which the plant was erected. The dictum laid down in Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd. would squarely apply in the facts of the present case as well. There are no patent infirmity in the findings returned by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 96
  
  Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner has not placed on record any material as to the date of receipt of order dated 16th December, 2021. In view of aforesaid sub-section (3A) of Section 85, the Petitioner was required to file Appeal within two months i.e., on or before 15th February, 2021 and the condonable period was one month thereafter which lapsed on 15th March, 2021. This Court is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 1229
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - amount of tax determined as payable by the Designated Committee - HELD THAT:- In the facts of this case that in the de novo proceedings the SCN survives only for adjudication of tax dues of Rs. 1,11,35,419/-. We therefore, find merits in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that for determining the amount payable by the Petitioner under the Scheme, the amount of tax dues to be taken into consideration would be for Rs. 1,11,35,419/- i.e., the amount confirmed by the original authority in the first round of litigation since the said assessment was accepted by the Department. The Petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of the order of remand in the appeal filed by it, which resulted in the order-in-original being set aside for re-determination. The case of the P....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 1148
  
  Benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is submitted that on 21.06.2019 itself, the petitioner had admitted and quantified the service tax payable by him of a sum of Rs.50,50,277/- and the same was done prior to 30.06.2019 as per the Scheme - HELD THAT:- The undisputed material on record indicates that on 21.06.2019 i.e., prior to the cut of date 30.06.2019, the petitioner had admitted and quantified the service tax payable by him as Rs.50,50,277/-. Since the petitioner has already made payment of the amount in respect of which, he had claimed the benefit under the SVLDRS scheme much prior to submitting Form SVLDRS-1, the petitioner would be entitled to avail the benefit under the SVLDRS Scheme and rejection of the same by the respondents by issuing the impugned communication is clearly arbitrary, illegal....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 1094
  
  SVLDRS - rectification / modification in the order to reject the application -Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - rejection on the ground that Petitioner did not pay this amount of Rs.8,41,497/- within 30 days of issuance of rectified Form No.SVLDRS-3 or within the extended period of 30th June 2020 - HELD THAT:- Revenue must be augmented and tax be collected without getting into other issues. - The Petitioner is willing to pay tax but, is facing the brunt of illegal rejection. Hence, not allowing Petitioner to avail the benefit under the scheme appears bad-in-law. The Petitioner having made payment, even if, there was a delay for which reasons are mentioned in the Petition, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should have accepted the amount and issued Form No.SVLDRS-4. Section 128 the designated committee can modify its order only to c....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 1008
  
  Rejection of declarations of the petitioners under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - rejection only on the ground that the appeal pending before the Apex Court is not pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the Department - applicability of Circular No. 1073/06/2019.CX dated 29th October 2019. It is clarified that the Retailer Association of India has represented that the department has initiated proceedings against lessors for non-payment of service tax on rent over immovable property rented by the members. The Apex Court has allowed the lessees to file a Civil Appeal challenging the applicability of service tax subject to the condition that they deposit appropriate pre-deposit as well as the remaining dues if the case of the petitioners is decided against them eventually. HELD THAT:- The said circular is cl....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 926
  
  Levy of service tax - reimbursement of service tax component as raised in the invoice of the provider - applicability of Municipal Commissioner’s Circular No.83 of 2013-14 - correct interpretation of the Mega Exemption Notification issued by the Central Government or not - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant did not remit the service tax component to the department, show cause notices were issued to all the three appellants. The matter has culminated in an order of adjudication which has been challenged by the said service provider before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (CESTAT). The learned single Bench, by the impugned order, though separate orders, they contain the same reasoning, taking note of the fact that the service tax authorities had issued summons to the appella....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 802
  
  Extended period of Limitation - activities related to State Government roads and buildings and providing services in relation thereto - service tax was not paid and service tax registration also not done - Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the order-in-original is an appealable order. However, no appeal was filed. Long after the limitation period for filing appeal was over, the present writ petition came to be filed - Since then petitioner has not furnished the names of the officers responsible for the present state of affairs. Ultimately, on 10.10.2022 after recording the submission of learned Special Government Pleader, it is made clear that if by the next date, information pertaining to names of the officials responsible for not filing the appeal against the order-in-original dated 16.11.2018 wa....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 697
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is Petitioner’s case that no amount is payable and for that relies on Form SVLDRS-1 that Petitioner had filed - HELD THAT:- Considering the Scheme, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, a party is entitled to file a consolidated declaration for all amounts which are, according to parties, payable to revenue. Just because the amounts payable would have come under the different categories does not mean the party should be made to pay something more than what would have been paid if a consolidated Application was filed. This scheme is for recovery of duty as also to recover tax and arrears of deficit amount. The scheme has been enacted with an object and purpose to minimize the tax disputes and to realise the arrears of tax by way of tax in exceptional manner. The scheme....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 634
  
  Rejection of Application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - rejection on the ground that the amount of duty in the case of Petitioners was not quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Section 125(1)(e) does not disqualify a person who has been issued a show cause notice after 30th June, 2019. It only says if a person has been subjected to an inquiry or investigation or audit and the amount of duty involved in the said inquiry or investigation or order has not been quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. The only requirement therefore is to see whether the amount of duty involved has been quantified on or before 30th June, 2019. The answer to this is, amount of duty has been quantified. In the reconciliation statement submitted, copy whereof is at Annexure-D to the Petition, the amount of ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 562
  
  Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain the appeal - Levy of service tax - clearing and forwarding agent service or not - specific case of the appellant was that the appellant was not providing any taxable service of a clearing and forwarding agent to M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. as it was not physically dealing with the goods namely, cement on behalf of its client M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. - HELD THAT:- If the dispute pertained to claim or denial of benefit of exemptions under a Notification under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1944 [Chapter V - Service Tax Act], it could be said that it pertained to a dispute relating to the rate of tax and therefore, this Court was barred under the exclusions in Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In such case, only the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 501
  
  Validity of order passed by the designated committee endorsed on Form SVLDRS 1 - taxability of the service has been rejected by the designated committee on the technical ground that the amount was not quantified before 30.06.2019 - contention is that the petitioner herein has filed a review application before the committee on 14.02.2022, which is still pending - HELD THAT:- Having noted the material placed on record, specifically page no.'21' of the paper book and the findings returned by the Assessing Officer from page no.'44' onwards, it is concluded that the matter requires inquiry. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, is granted to file of rejoinder affidavit - List thereafter on 14.12.2022.

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 498
  
  Redetermination of Service Tax due within period of limitation - incorrect filing of required periodic returns and especially when the departmental officers were barred from routinely going to the premises of the respondent for checking their accounts - suppression of facts - Section 73 of Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The alleged omissions and commissions by the assessee and the surrounding circumstances warranting issuance of show-cause notice, no doubt, are stated in great detail by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin in Order in Original. Keeping view the scope of challenge to the order under appeal and the grounds raised, therefore, we are of the view that this Court need not refer to all the circumstances in detail. On perusal of orders and stated briefly, that the core of the controversy in the show-....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 343
  
  Recovery of service tax - failure to pay the discounted amount of service tax by the last date - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT: This Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petition and deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition for the reasons infra:- The decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered at Indore in the case of M/s. Balaji Services [2021 (10) TMI 435 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] does not assist the petitioner since in the said scheme the question of extending the last date for submission of rebated amount of service tax was not raised or decided. The question before the Court was as to whether the rejection of application Form SVLDRS-1 can be made without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee despite the scheme providing for such an opportunity. It is no....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 342
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - claim put up before this Court is that some amount of tax was deposited by the petitioner earlier in regard to the same assessment year but due to inadvertence could not be claimed while applying under the said Scheme - demand by issuance of notice u/S. 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- What the petitioner wants in this petition is to reopen his case under the said Scheme after the last date which is not possible as that would amount to putting the clock back and tinkering with the scheme and allowing the petitioner to adopt procedure dehorse the Scheme. The Apex Court in M/s Yashi Constructions Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] while dealing with somewhat similar situation has held that It is a settled ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 341
  
  Withholding the refund of security deposit with the state government towards service tax - Seeking issuance of directions in the nature of 'mamdamus' to the respondents to decide the legal notice - seeking release of the petitioner lying deposited with respondent no. 3 - HELD THAT:- The stand of respondents no. 2 and 3 was to the effect that they had withheld the amount solely for the reason that service tax liability had not been cleared by the petitioner whereas the Department of Central Excise (as it was then), now the Assistant Commissioner Central GST clearly states that in the present case service tax was not applicable and that no demand of service tax has ever been raised by the concerned department. Consequently, the retention of the aforesaid security money deposited by the petitioner is per se not justified. The same is....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 1011
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - SVLDRS - adjustment of amount deposited under protect - seeking direction to the respondent to issue fresh Form No.3 after adjusting the amount already deposited by the respondent - HELD THAT:- As the part of the Finance Act, 2019 the Parliament framed the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 which is contained in Chapter-V of the said Finance Act. The relevant scheme is discernible, in so for as it is relevant for our purpose from Sections 120 and 124. The appellant department was not justified in estimating the duty payable by the respondent while ignoring the amount deposited by the respondent under protest. There are merit in the submission of Mr. Priyadarshi Manish that the amount deposited has no specific colour since the amount was deposited under protest an....... + More

  ---

12345........ 158