Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2879 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 (7) TMI 987 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - matter was adjudicated ex-parte, in the absence of the petitioner - petitioner did not appear before the respondent - levy of service tax in respect of service rendered to members - HELD THAT:- One more opportunity can be extended to the petitioner to present its case before the respondent. It is true that a person who did not avail of the opportunity for hearing cannot later complain about violation of principles of natural justice. However, considering the fact that Ext.p11 request was made citing the COVID-19 pandemic and considering the fact that it the specific case of the petitioner that E-mail dated 03-03-2021 fixing the date of hearing on 25-03-2021 had not come to the notice of any of the office bearers of the petitioner, it is only appropriate such opportunity is extended to the petitioner. It is ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 927 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of old assessments - Notifications dated 30th January 2009, 10th September 2014, February 2015 - Circular dated 03rd March 2015 - Para 12.3 and 12.4 of the Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX - Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. I-UOI. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within four weeks.
- 2021 (7) TMI 648 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of appellate order - applicability of decision in the case of M/S ICS FOOD PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [2018 (7) TMI 1061 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] - the department had elected to carry the said order in an appeal before the Supreme Court and hence the said decision had not attained finality - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage. In our opinion, interest of justice would be sufficiently served if a limited remand is ordered to the Commissioner (Appeals-III) for revisiting his decision based on the circumstance that the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/S ICS FOOD PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [2018 (7) TMI 1061 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has since attained finality. If indeed the said decision has ap....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 646 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing claim - failure to remit the amount due under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 even after repeated extensions provided - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Writ Petitions are presented only on 30.04.2021, 10 months after the last date for remittance of the amounts. No plausible reason is set out in the affidavit justifying the delay except to state that the assessees were facing hardships on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the light of the long delay sans explanation, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 528 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Consolidated application seeking leave to amend the petition and for interim relief - HELD THAT:- It is not proper to file such consolidated application. In any case, on this occasion, we grant leave to the petitioners to amend the petition. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks and amended copies of the petition to be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondent within the same period. A stay is granted to the operation of the adjudication order dated 18/2/2021 subject to the petitioners depositing with the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax 10% of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if there is failure to deposit within this period, then, the interim relief now granted will stand vacated without any further reference to this Court - application disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 520 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Challenging the order of the settlement application - erroneous demand of interest - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly the application filed under Section 32E of the 1944 Act, for settling the issues, was entertained by the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission also adjudicated the issues with reference to the informations and particulars provided by the assessee. The Settlement Commission accepted the terms of reference and finally granted immunity to the applicant/petitioner from prosecution and the order was passed. The petitioner has no grievance in respect of the other orders passed, except the interest portion directed to be paid by the petitioner. It is clear that it is an admitted fact that the applicant/petitioner has raised bill on the service recipient charging 100% of the applicable....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 465 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme - quantification of the amount to be paid - defence taken is that investigation in the matter is still on-going and that the duty component has not been quantified - Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX dated 27.08.2019 - HELD THAT:- The doubt that arises from the quantification in the statement is as to whether the amount is a sum of ₹ 98.00 lakhs or ₹ 75.00 lakhs. This would hinge upon the status of the petitioner as SSI unit or otherwise. Subject to a decision on this aspect, a quantification of duty in both instances has been made at the time of recording of statement seen in the light of Section 121(r) of the Scheme read with clause 10(g) of the Circular dated 27.08.2017. The matter remanded to the file of R1, who shall complete the exercise by determining this aspect of the matter al....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not submitted their explanation or defence statement and requested time on the ground that some Writ Petitions are pending - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that in all other Writ Petitions where the show cause notices are questioned before this Court, this Court passed an order, directing the petitioners to submit explanations and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, the final order is to be passed. In view of the said order, the present Writ Petition is also to be remanded back for a fresh consideration by the authorities. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to submit their explanations, documents and evidences and by affording opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, pass final orders in the manner known to law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (7) TMI 385 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking direction to Revenue to accept payment pursuant to issuance of Form 3 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 towards full and final settlement of tax dues - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to keep this writ petition pending any more in the light of the position that the petitioner has, according to it, remitted the balance of the amount under its declaration. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation for acceptance of its application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 within a period of one week from today, accompanied by a copy of this order to the Board and the Board is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from receipt thereafter. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 309 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Failure to remit the service tax - issuance of a pre-show cause notice - violation of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 and the Circular dated 19.11.2020 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is seen that every attempt made by the respondent to secure information/document from the appeal were stonewalled by the appellant. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was not preventive in nature but yet an offence report was registered against the appellant - If the appellant desired to seek the benefit of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, he is expected to comply with the summons issued by the respondent seeking explanation/documents that were summoned by the respondent. The benefit of the Master Circular cannot be a one-way traffic and the appellant cannot milch the Maste....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 260 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - while granting second personal hearing, typographical / clerical error crept in SVLDRS-2B - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioners’ claim of having deposited a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- towards service tax liability pursuant to show-cause notice is not denied; and it is required to be ascertained as to whether the payment claimed by the petitioners is towards said liability and as such, hearing was necessary, a room for which is given in the scheme, particularly under section 127. According to the petitioners, they had applied for adjournment in Form SVLDRS-2A and in response even Form SVLDRS-2B had been assigned for such purpose. The revenue as well, as a matter of fact, has referred to that Form SVLDRS-2B had been issued, albeit, there has been typograp....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 258 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax - Membership of Clubs and Association Service - HELD THAT:- This issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT] which judgment the assessing authority did not have the benefit of, at the time when the impugned order-in-original was passed. The matter remitted to the file of the Assessing authority to be redone afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (7) TMI 257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking Revenue to accept payment pursuant to issuance of Form 3 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - whether original time of 30 days from issuance of Form 3 has been overridden by the Department - N/N. 13 of 2016 dated 01.03.2016 - HELD THAT:- Though the decision of the Board was sought for specifically, an affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner/R5 stating that since the petitioner has not made the remittance within the due date of 30.06.2020, the application ought to be treated as lapsed. There are no reason to keep this writ petition pending any more. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation within a period of one week from today, accompanied by a copy of this order to the Board and the Board is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from receipt thereafter. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 256 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Time limitation - application has been filed in 2019 and Form 3 in this case is dated 03.01.2020 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed a representation, which contains two dates, 30.03.2021 and 05.04.2021, before the Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes, for which there is no acknowledgement, even for dispatching the same, praying for a permission to remit the tax under the Scheme - That apart, the petitioner has instituted this Writ Petition only on 16.06.2021, nearly a year after the last date stipulated by the Board for payment of tax. In such a situation, this Court is not in a position to intervene in this matter and it is left to the petitioner to pursue its representation, if at all filed, before the Board. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 230 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest on services tax - an adjudication was conducted and final order was passed on 17.09.2014, by the Settlement Commission seeking interest - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly the application filed under Section 32E of the 1944 Act, for settling the issues, was entertained by the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission also adjudicated the issues with reference to the informations and particulars provided by the assessee. The Settlement Commission accepted the terms of reference and finally granted partial immunity from penalty to the applicant and further, granted immunity from prosecution and the order was passed. The interest is chargeable based on certain admitted facts and circumstances placed before the Settlement Commission. If at all ther....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 222 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Recovery of erroneous double service tax liability - Works Contract Service - deposit of service tax was ignored - HELD THAT:- The position appears to be that the payment of ₹ 32,12,000/- during the proceedings after show cause notice from time to time has not been denied at all nor is there any allegation that the challans are non-existent or forged. It is claimed by the petitioner that challans in respect of payment aggregating to ₹ 32,12,000/- were produced before the adjudicating authority and the same had also been communicated to the designated authority and further that the department is wary of that and the office of respondent No. 3 had submitted a verification report dated 20.02.2020 stating the factual position as per challans submitted by the petitioner, the total s....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 125 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Settlement under SVLDR scheme was opted - date of payment has been extended - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had tendered payment on 30/06/2020 and the amount accordingly had been debited from the account of the petitioner, however, the same came to be recredited in its account. The efforts of the petitioner to pay and have its acknowledgment have been in vain and thus, the petitioner is before this court. It appears that there is no dispute on aforesaid facts and particularly on the tender of payment being made on 30/06/2020. For no fault of the petitioner, the amount was not being accepted. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 68 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Levy of penalty - Extended Period of limitation - service tax collected but not paid - entire service tax along with interest was paid before issue of SCN - Penalty u/s 76, 77 and 78 - proviso to section 73(1) of Finance Act - HELD THAT:-The tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by a cryptic order, which reads as under: The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is justified because in this case the appellant has collected the service tax but did not deposit the same in the Govt Treasury which itself shows that there was malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. The appellant was registered with the Service Tax Department and was very well aware of their liability to pay service tax to the Govt. The appellant has not been able to give any reasonable explanatio....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 24 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Levy of tax which was claimed under Form SVLDRS-1 - the application under the scheme was rejected on the ground of late filing of returns - penalty and interest for late payment of tax for late filing of returns, liable to be imposed but was not imposed - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- According to the Scheme, once an assessee avails the Scheme and files the return by declaration, the verification of declaration by the designated Committee was prescribed under Section 126 of the SVLDRS Scheme and the issue of statement by the designated committee is covered under Section 127 of the SVLDRS Scheme - As per Section 127 of the SVLDRS Scheme, when the declaration made by the petitioner was rejected, meaning thereby he would be liable to pay further interest and penalty on late payment and return. However, t....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 1051 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Constitutional Validity of Sections 65 (30a), 65(105) (zzq), 66 and 67 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 - levy of service tax - composite contract - civil construction of materials supplied and labour - Contractors Association - aggrieved person or not - HELD THAT:- The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2010. Several developments took place with reference to the provisions of the amended Service Tax Act and now, the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) has replaced the Service Tax Act. In view of the developments, further adjudication need not be undertaken with reference to the grounds - This apart, Contractors Association cannot maintain a Writ Petition and the aggrieved members with reference to the provisions of the Act alone is competent to file a Writ Petition and thus, this Court is of an opinion that the Writ Petition its....... + More