|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2653 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 (9) TMI 1069 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Rejection of SVLDR scheme - Section 125 (1) (e) of the Finance Act, 2019 - contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has filed the declarations after being subjected to an enquiry/ investigation/audit and hence he is not eligible to make declarations and avail the benefits of the Scheme - HELD THAT:- The SVLDR Scheme has been introduced by the Government of India as an endeavour to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes that have been subsumed under GST and allow business to make a new beginning and focus on GST. Dispute Resolution and Amnesty are the two components of the SVLDR Scheme. The Dispute Resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases locked up in litigation at various forums, whereas the Amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 988 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - prayer for revival of appeal accepting 7.5% pre-deposit and dispose of the appeal on merits - banking and other financial services - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The legal argument advanced by the petitioner is that their activities are arrangements between the members of the Society and it would not amount to 'banking and other financial services' as defined in the Finance Act, 1994. This is a question of law. By Ext.P4 order by which the appeal was rejected for non compliance of pre-deposit requirements, the petitioner has lost opportunity to urge the aforesaid legal contention. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall be permitted to argue the appeal on merits. The writ petition is disposed of permitti....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 780 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Refund of service tax - respondent has deposited lumpsum amount during investigation and same was not recovered from the customers - Principles of Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- It is evident that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded that respondent has not passed on burden of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- to the customers which was deposited by him during investigation/adjudication. Finding so recorded is a finding of fact, based on consideration of relevant material on record. We, repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to point out any evidence which may indicate that the burden was passed on by the respondent, but the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any document, therefore, concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 648 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Taking up Tax Appeals for final hearing on a particular date - HELD THAT:- All the four appeals have been admitted on few substantial questions of law involved in the matter. We also take notice of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Civil Applications preferred by the original appellant seeking interim-relief. It is not in dispute that the original appellant has deposited 25% of the amount of demand with interest with the department. It is also not in dispute that the larger issue involved in these appeals is being looked into by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is yet to decide the same. The decision of the Supreme Court should be awaited for the better adjudication of the substantial questions of law involved in the present Tax Appeals. It would not be appropriate to fix the Tax Appeals for final hearing. Let the decision of the Supreme Court be pronounced.
- 2020 (9) TMI 596 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner took the stand that certain documents are to be provided by the respondents so that they could submit a consolidated reply to the show cause notice - first respondent however decided that the petitioner is not entitled to the said copy of the report and fixed the personal hearing on 29.07.2019 - HELD THAT:- The adjudication process cannot be stalled. But then, in the case on hand, the petitioner's demand is for the supply of a copy of the Scrutiny report prepared by the third respondent. It is admitted in the counter affidavit itself that verification exercise was undertaken - the contention of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be agreed with, that the verification exercise undertaken by the third respondent is an integral part of the adjudication process. It cannot be. The first respondent....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 356 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Non-payment of Service Tax - Man Power Recruitment and Supply Agency Services - It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 27th September, 2016 came to be passed by the respondent no.1 in absence of any reply or any evidence being produced by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioner was registered under section 69 pursuant to the Act-1994 for providing “Man Power Recruitment and Supply Agency Services”. However the petitioner did not file the return in Form ST3 and did not deposit the service tax collected by him from his clients. It was also found by the adjudicating authority on scrutiny of the documents submitted and verified during investigation that the petitioner did not correctly declare his total service amount and purposefully concealed the income from service provided by him. The petitioner als....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 121 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Rejection of benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - mistake of not mentioning the penalty - filing of details in the wrong column i.e. filing details in the column 9.1 instead of column 9.4 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position of the parties that the petitioner does not come within the purview of the exceptions provided in sub clauses (a) to (h) of Section 125, meaning thereby that petitioners are otherwise eligible to make a declaration under Scheme 2019. The only issue before the Court would be whether the claim of the petitioner for the benefit under Scheme 2019 would stand rejected as because of the aforesaid mistake of not mentioning the penalty or a different view can also be taken in the matter - Admittedly the Finance Act, 1994 wherein, Scheme 2019 has been incorporated does not provide for any pro....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 9 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of declaration filed under the amnesty scheme- Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - settlement of Service tax dues - rejection of the declaration filed by the Petitioner on account of Petitioner’s eligibility relates to quantification of tax dues prior to the ‘relevant date’ - HELD THAT:- As per Section 123, in case of an enquiry or investigation or audit which is pending against the declarant, the amount of duty payable under any of the indirect tax enactments has to be quantified before 30th June, 2019. Section 125(1)(e) referred above, renders all such persons ineligible to make a declaration under the Scheme who have been subjected to an enquiry or investigation or audit and the amount involved has not been quantified on or before 30th June 2019. Thus, Section 125 (1)(e) in a way complim....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 788 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benefit of Amnesty Scheme - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - CENVAT Credit on input services - Revenue contended that since the returns were not filed within the prescribed time and since the entitlement to avail of the input credit had lapsed, the petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of the Cenvat credit - whether the petitioner could contend that he was entitled to take advantage of Cenvat credit on input services amounting to ₹ 4,15,14,081/- and consider the same as a pre-deposit under the scheme? - Circular dated 27.08.2019. HELD THAT:- The Circular dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Department categorically states that one of the objectives of the Scheme was to give an opportunity to those who had failed to correctly pay the tax. The Circular states that to this extent the Scheme comp....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground that the audit was conducted and conveyed on 02nd July, 2019 and amount of duty involved in the audit had not been quantified on or before the 30th day of June, 2019 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the duty liability stood admitted in an oral statement by the petitioner before 30th June, 2019 and consequently stood quantified prior to the cut-off date in accordance with the beneficial circulars dated 12th December, 2019 and 27th August, 2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - This Court is further of the opinion that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the SVLDRS, 2019 and the circulars issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as their intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy di....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 296 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of service tax - initiation of recovery proceedings without adjudication of SCN - HELD THAT:- According to the respondents, the dues from the respondents were due to the failure of the petitioner in carrying forward opening balance of CENVAT credit and filing proper returns. The petitioner cannot therefore raise any grievance - Be that as it may, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P8 show-cause notice invoking Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has the opportunity to explain its stand and position before the 4th respondent. Before adjudicating the issues raised in Ext.P8 show-cause notice, if the respondents proceed under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act and Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the Act read with Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, the petitioner will inde....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 228 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Request to postpone the recovery of service tax - pandemic COVID situation - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that Mr. Ghosh was able to raise the substantial question of law, which requires adjudication and considering the fact that in this pandemic situation there may be difficulties to participate in the adjudication proceeding, the respondent authorities shall not give effect to the impugned letter dated 22nd June, 2020 and the hearing may be deferred for the time being till the normal functioning is restored. In view of the fact that the affidavits have been exchanged by and between the parties, the matter may be listed for hearing on the first available working day in the month of September, 2020 - Application disposed off.
- 2020 (8) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Export of services or not - Services provided outside India - Parent Company / 100% holding company - Distinct Person or not - POPOS Rules - services rendered by the Petitioner No.1 to Linde AG, Germany - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- Rule 6A of the Rules, 1994 provides that services rendered would be treated as “Export of services” when clause (a) to clause (d) refers to provider of service is located in the taxable territory and recipient of service is located outside India and the service is not a service specified in Section 66D of the Act and the place of the provision of the service is outside India and as per clause (e) the payment for such service has been received by the provider of service in convertible Foreign Exchange. It emerges that the petitioner is fulfilling all the conditions, ....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 111 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Extended period of limitation - - Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services - two views of the Tribunal itself in two different orders - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has not at all assigned proper reasons for its order on the said issue no. 4, regarding taxability of the manpower services provided by the Assessee, and whether in those facts and circumstances of the case, the extended limitation could be invoked by the Department or not. Without discussing the relevant facts and ratio of its two judgments, referred to and relied on by the learned Tribunal, and the facts of the case of the respondent/Assessee, merely writing these citations in the said order itself is not enough. The order of the final fact finding body at the level of Tribunal has to be self contained and should discuss the relevant facts and reasons for arriving at a par....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction to the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 29th January, 2020, 31st January, 2020 and the email dated 24th June, 2020 - amendment/modification of the categorization of her application as “litigation” instead of “voluntary” in the statement filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s representations dated 29th January, 2020, 31st January, 2020 and the email dated 24th June, 2020, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three weeks in accordance with law. Issue Notice.
- 2020 (8) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejected on the sole ground that the demand was neither quantified nor communicated to the petitioner on or before 30th June, 2019 - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the Scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under the Central Excise and Service Tax and to allow the businesses to make a fresh beginning - Since it is the petitioner’s case that she had admitted her liability to pay service tax on 18th May, 2018 itself, this Court is of the view that the respondents should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the declaration dated 29th December, 2019 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The impugned ....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Duplication of demand by issuing two show cause notices (SCN) for the same period - Sabka Vishwas Legacy Disputes Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - remission of differential service tax - short payment of tax - periods December 2008 to January 2010 - whether there was a duplication of demand in the two SCNs dated 12.10.2011 and 09.02.2012? - HELD THAT:- There is an overlap between the period covered under SCN1 and SCN2, the former covering the period December 2008 to January 2010 and the latter the period April 2008 to March 2010. The periods December 2008 to January 2010 are thus common under both SCNs - revenue agrees in counter that the demand of ₹ 19,15,941/- is duplicated. Hence, according to them, the demand under OinO2 stands reduced to ₹ 10,00,775/-of which 30%, as per the Scheme, is a sum of ₹ 3,00,232.50. Ther....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - contention of the respondents is that Sub Rule (3) of Rule 7 only qualifies Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 - HELD THAT:- While Sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 specifies the form that has to be used while filing the half yearly returns, Sub Rule(3) clarifies the manner in which the half yearly returns have to be filed by an assessee after 01.10.2011. When so read harmoniously, it would follow that the half yearly return that has to be submitted in the particular form mentioned in Sub Rule (1) had necessarily to be submitted electronically with effect from 01.10.2011 - In the instant case, the petitioner not having filed the returns in electronic form within the period specified in the statute, cannot now be heard to contend that he can file the return in manual form for the purposes of obtai....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 591 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rectification of impugned Form SVLDRS-03 dated 22nd May, 2020 - rectifiable error - HELD THAT:- The petition and application are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 12th June, 2020 in accordance with law within two weeks. Issue Notice.
- 2020 (7) TMI 590 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard - levy of Service Tax - contract of construction of road - period from April- 2014 to June-2017 - HELD THAT:- This court is of the considered view that due and sufficient opportunity of being heard of reasonable nature was extended to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice which was issued about 9-10 months back. If the petitioner had any genuine intentions of filing reply and not delaying the matter, petitioner would have availed the opportunity - thus the opportunity of reasonable in nature was extended to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order vide P/1. Petition dismissed.
........
|
