|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2926 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 (10) TMI 590 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - seeking directions to the Respondent No. '4' to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to present its case in relation to the Second Declaration - HELD THAT:- The Respondent vide its letter dated 08th August, 2019 had pointed out that, even according to the Petitioner’s own calculation, service tax liability was due and outstanding. The Petitioner was asked to deposit the balance service tax liability as calculated by the Petitioner vide the said letter. In fact, from the summons dated 20th May, 2019, it is apparent that the case was under investigation under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act and the Petitioner has been asked to furnish a large number of documents including copies of challans showing its service tax liability deposited after the date of service - the said communica....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Principles of natural justice - maintainability of appeal filed by the Department without considering the plea as to the necessity of possessing a registration certificate for availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services for the purpose of claiming refund - HELD THAT:- The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant sent a letter dated 28.9.2021 to the Registry seeking to list the above appeal for withdrawal. Hence, the matter is listed today under the caption 'for withdrawal'. Today, when the case is called, a similar request is made to that effect. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2021 (10) TMI 535 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Denial of CENVAT Credit with penalty - extended period of limitation - first year of service tax implementation - recovery of service tax not paid - failure to submit half yearly returns in time - service tax was not paid in time - suppression of facts or not - Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The respondent-Bank has maintained separate accounts in respect of service tax and education cess. The service tax was implemented with effect from 10.09.2004. The Commissioner and the Tribunal both have arrived at a conclusion that the assessee are new to service tax matters. The Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have also arrived at a conclusion that the respondent-Bank has accounted service tax and education cess separately while making cash payments. The material on record does not indicate that the respondent-Bank has ind....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 534 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking order to repay the amount under SABKA VISWAHS SCHEME 2019 - the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on 23.10.2020 to reconsider the issue and to accept the payment and permit the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme - HELD THAT:- The said representation since has been considered by the respondents and it has been rejected through the order, dated 10.03.2021 and the copy of the same also has been annexed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, without challenging the said order, dated 10.03.2021, since the petitioner has moved this writ petition once again seek for a writ of Mandamus to consider his representation, dated 23.10.2020, therefore, the same cannot be entertained by this Court. Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (10) TMI 488 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Applicability of time limitation on refund of service tax - assessee paid service tax on the LPC inadvertently for the period April 2009 to March 2011 - whether the amount paid by the assessee under a mistaken notion by the assessee was refundable? - section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT:- Mere payment made will neither validate the nature of payment nor the nature of transaction. The same could not make it a service tax. When there is a lack of authority to collect such service tax not liable to be paid by the assessee, it would not give the Department the authority to retain the amount paid by the assessee. Therefore, mere nomenclature would not be an embargo on the right of the petitioner to demand refund of payment made under a mistaken notion. Indisputably, the exemption notification is not under consideration. If the payment....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 435 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of application without following the principles of natural justice and with utter disregard of section 126 of the Act - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of provisions of section 127 of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rule 6(3) of SVLDRS Rules, makes it clear that the 'Scheme' is a beneficent one and aim and object of the 'Scheme' is to unload the baggage of pending litigation relating to service tax and excise duty. While interpreting a beneficent provision, its aim and object cannot be ignored. Considering the THOUGHT BLURB VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it was held that it will be completely illogical and contrary to the object of the 'Scheme' to reject an application on the ground of ineligibility without giving ....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 314 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Realization of service tax / GST by the Opposite Parties - seeking grant of refund - pro-rata reduction in the amount as there was lability to pay less amount - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in similar circumstances GGS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE [2020 (12) TMI 914 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that The amount of service tax dues having thus crystallized, the resolution plan says that the same would be settled at 5% of the principal dues adjudicated. The word used is “adjudicated” and not “adjusted” as sought to be read and applied by the respondent. Therefore, the amount that the petitioner would be required to pay is 5% of ₹ 7,02,20,725.00. A direction is issued to Opposite Party No.3 to calculate and refund to the Petitioner the excess service tax paid by ....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 310 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of service tax alongwith penalty - transfer of development rights - suppression of factum of taxable service - intent to evade tax - HELD THAT:- Petitioners are the land developers and that they take up developmental activities on the lands belonging to others, is not in dispute; the development activities are accomplished in terms of Joint Development Agreements whereunder the structure built in the form of Flats are shared between the developers and the land owners in the agreed ratio. Circular dated 10.02.2012 makes it abundantly clear that the taxable event occurs at the time when the builder gives the possession or creates right in the property of the said Flats in favour of the land owner; these “building blocks” of the provision are conspicuously absent in the impugned notices which appear to stand as the “no....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of order of settlement commission whereas service tax liability has been settled at a certain sum with interest and penalty - petitioner discharged service tax liability @50% instead of @100% and balance 50% of the service tax paid by the service provider - manpower services - double taxation - HELD THAT:- the Settlement Commission has to keep in mind the recommendation of The Wanchoo Committee that if the tax payer takes the initiative and voluntarily discloses the facts of his alleged deviations to their full extent, he should not be subjected to criminal proceedings and that pecuniary settlement should put the matter to rest. The High Courts of Bombay, Gujrat and Punjab & Haryana have taken the view that when the duty paid character and receipt are not in doubt, the credit cannot be denied relying upon procedural rules - r....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay of 815 days in filing appeal - initially the appeal was filed before wrong forum, after knowing the facts, the appeal was filed before right forum after such huge delay - Short payment/non-payment of service tax - business auxiliary services - security service under reverse charge mechanism - renting immovable property service - repair, reconditioning, restoration and other similar service - freight charges paid under reverse charge mechanism - reversal of proportionate cenvat credit u/r 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the order in original was passed on 30.08.2018, of course, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, which the petitioner cannot deny. On receipt of the order in original on 04.09.2018, prerequisite deposit of 7.5% of demanded tax was paid by the petitioner on 20.09.201....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1282 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - permission to file claim under the correct category under the SVLDR Scheme - condonation of delay in filing application - seeking not to declare the petitioner as defaulter under SVLDR Scheme and not to disallow the benefits made available to it under the SVLDR Scheme - HELD THAT:- Section 123(a)(i) of the Scheme interalia permits eligibility of an assessee whose appeal arising out of an order-in-original is pending as of June 30, 2019, for consideration of the total amount of duty which is being disputed in the appeal. Admittedly the petitioner’s appeal challenging the order in original dated March 16, 2018 was pending on the cut-off date, i.e., on June 30, 2019, as the same was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) at a later date, that is, on July 9, 2019. This apart, the ....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of CENVAT Credit - cenvat credit on common input services used for providing both taxable service and exempt service - rejection on the ground that there was no identity of input services as far as direct trading and incentive trading were concerned - non-adherence to the procedure laid down under the Rules for payment/reversal - burden of prove - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned communication is a show cause notice, the burden lies heavy upon the petitioner to establish that the same is bereft of jurisdiction, as the scope of interference under Article 226 in such case is limited. The scope of examination is restricted to the question as to whether the impugned show cause notice stretches beyond the scope of remand by the CESTAT. Entitlement to credit - HELD THAT:- The issue stands decided at the level of the first Appellate Authori....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1103 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund of service tax paid under the mistaken understanding of law - Time limitation - Lack of evidences placed on record - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority while passing the order in original has categorically observed that no evidence was placed before the authority correlating that the service tax amount collected from the claimant has been remitted to the government account and there is no evidence to show that the service tax amount received from the claimant is actually remitted to the government account by M/s.Ranka International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. The same having been observed by the Appellate Authority without further examining on this factual aspect. In the absence of factual findings before the Court, in the writ petition proceedings, this Court cannot exercise the functions of the assessing authority or the fact findi....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 935 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Levy of tax, claimed under Form SVLDRS-1 - service tax dues, was paid late - It is contended that the respondent No. 4, without considering the provision of Scheme of 2019 and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the order in a mechanical manner by which the Form SVLDRS-1 submitted by the petitioner was summarily rejected - HELD THAT:- According to the Scheme, once the 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 p....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 908 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 - unilateral declaration of liability by the petitioner - quantification of demand not made - petitioner was orally informed that the applicability of scheme has been rejected as the Deputy Commissioner till date has not calculated any duty/tax liability - HELD THAT:- Form SVLDRS-1 placed by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 itself contains the ground of its rejection as, ‘ground of ineligibility’ with remarks, ‘amount neither quantified nor communicated’. It is, therefore, apparent that the application form annexed by the petitioner itself shows its rejection as also the reason for the rejection. The petitioner, therefore, cannot plead ignorance of the same. In the present case as well, there was a reference to a unilateral declaration of liability by the petitioner....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 828 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Denial of benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - denial on the ground that condition contained in section 125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 is not satisfied because there has been no quantification arrived at by Anti Evasion, CGST, Mumbai Central - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The respondents do not dispute that no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. He has fairly conceded to the suggestion of the Court that the eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme may be directed to be considered afresh, keeping open all points for determination by the appropriate authority. The impugned order stands set aside. The appropriate authority shall proceed to consider the issue of eligibility of the petitioner to avail the benefits of the scheme by extendi....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 779 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Direction to accept payments (belatedly) determined pursuant to Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Suffice to dispose of captioned writ petition as closed, preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to send a representation to the respondents and making it clear that if the writ petitioner is so advised and if the writ petitioner sends a representation, it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by this order. In other words, this order will neither impede nor serve as a impetus, if a representation is made. Captioned Writ Petition is disposed of.
- 2021 (9) TMI 618 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Levy of Service Tax on the services by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station for clearance in India - POPOS Rules - Validity of N/N. 22/2014-ST dated 16th September, 2014 - Vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 or not - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. They pray for and are permitted to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks. Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 30th September, 2021.
- 2021 (9) TMI 520 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - why the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant, if the refund has already been made to the Respondent? - HELD THAT:- The Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi North is directed to state on an affidavit the exact date on which the process was initiated in the relevant file for filing the present appeal challenging the impugned final order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It prima facie appears to the Court that the present proceedings are merely an eye wash and an empty formality by the Appellant, for the sake of completing the record. The affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
- 2021 (9) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exempt services or not - educational institutions or not - whether the services rendered by the petitioner university by granting affiliation and its allied activities and also by providing shelter in their campus to the service providers like Bank, Post Office, or catering etc., directly beneficial to the students, staff and faculty of the university, are exempted services within the meaning of Section 66-D of the Finance Act and also under the Mega Exemption Notification of the year 2012 as amended from time to time? HELD THAT:- This Court is of the concerned view that, that kind of narrow or pedantic interpretation cannot be possible in the words “conduct of examination”. The reason being, the very prime function of the petitioner university under the statute, under which it has been created, under Section 4(4) of the Unive....... + More
........
|
