Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax HC Service Tax - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Service Tax - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 2038 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1264 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

    Vires of N/N. 22/2015-CE(NT) dated 29th October, 2015 - Violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India - utilization of credit accumulated on account of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess for payment of service tax leviable and payable on telecommunication services - grievance of the petitioners is, and they claim a vested right to avail benefit of the unutilized amount of EC or SHE credit, which....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Guardwell Security Service P Ltd And 1 Versus Union of India And 1

    Application for settlement u/s 32 of the CEA 1944 - security agency and manpower recruiting agency service - It is the case of the petitioner that on account of prevailing fluid situation about applicability of the service tax to security service agency, the service tax was not paid for the particular disputed period. However, after the visit by the officers, the service tax was substantially paid. - Held that - The order of the Settlement Commis....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1188 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Sunmac Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor K. Hari, Coimbatore Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Levy of service tax - activity done by the petitioner namely erection, maintenance and repairs of street lights for the use of Municipal Corporation - Held that - The inability to pay the mandatory pre-deposit cannot be a ground to entertain a writ petition - Petition not maintainable - petition dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Service Tax­IV Mumbai Versus M/s. J.P. Morgan Services Pvt. Ltd

    CENVAT credit - input services - rejection was on the ground that there were 21 services which were held to be not used in providing output services, and hence not classifiable as input service under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The other reason was that Cenvat Credit was availed on the input services but against input invoice which pertains to the period prior to registration. - Held that - the scope of admissibility of input services i....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

    Refund claim - time limitation - export of services out of India - validity of SCN - Revenue s case is that as per Section 11(B) of the CEA 1944, the refund claim has to be filed within one (1) year from the relevant date and the relevant date in the case of the petitioner is the date of order passed by the appellate authority and if such date is reckoned, the application for refund dated 27.04.2017 is filed beyond the period of one year - Held t....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1056 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Versus M/s. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises and M/s. Green Valley Developers and Kumar Beheray Rathi

    Levy of service tax - maintenance charges for upkeep of the apartment or premises - whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the assessee was not providing Management, Maintenance or Repair Service by collecting amount from prospective flat buyers, for maintaining the building, in the guise of deposits which is not returnable? - Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that assessee is providing statutory service and has rendered definition pr....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1055 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    East Coast Constructions & Industries Limited Versus The Additional Commissioner Service Tax

    Maintainability of petition - classification dispute - alternative remedy - Held that - in the instant case, the petitioner/assessee did not place the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Tiruchirappalli Vs. Indian Humes Pipes Co. Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT nor the decision in the case of Lanco Infratch Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad 2015 (....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 845 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Versus M/s. Sasi Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

    Penalty - Advertising Services - non-payment of tax within due dates - payment of tax dues within interest before issuance of SCN - Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that penalty u/s 76 & 77 of the Service Tax Act is not leviable when part of the service tax due and the interest is paid before the issuance of show cause notice? - Held that - Perusal of the material on record discloses that interest payable on the belated payment of ser....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 577 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s. K2K Infrastructure (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India

    Validity of Show cause notice raising demand from January 2013 - Assessee had opted for Voluntary Compliance Entitlement Scheme (VCES) - filing of declaration and payment of dues - Held that - The due Service Tax liability for the period upto December 2012, for which the petitioner had filed the Declaration in VCES-1 Form vide Annexure C1 cannot have any relation with the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The liability of Service Ta....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 409 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    K. Ranganatha Adiga Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax Bangalore, The Joint Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore and Others.

    Recovery of Service Tax dues - Garnishee order under Section 87 of the Finance Act of 1994 - Held that - Admittedly in the present case, the Service Tax Liability determined against the petitioner assessee under the Garnishee orders Annexure A and Annexure B has not been set aside or even stayed by any higher Authority or Court or the Tribunal. Therefore, such liability of the petitioner assessee to pay such Service Tax to the Central Government ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 408 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    Premier Associates Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

    Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) - rejection of declaration on the ground that the tax payable and due to the petitioner as declared under the said VCES, 2013 was paid before the date of promulgation itself on 10.5.2013 - Held that - the petitioner admittedly has complied with all the relevant conditions of VCES, 2013 and therefore, its declaration, prima facie, deserved to be accepted and has been wrongly rejected by the responde....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 86 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax And Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Pvt. Ltd

    Validity of show cause notice - Liability of service tax - activity of generating electricity - negative list - opportunity of being heard - principles of natural justice - Held that - The petitioner conceded to the request made by the respondent for furnishing copies of invoices which were furnished on 22.09.2015 and 23.09.2015. Immediately thereafter, the Miscellaneous Petition has been filed on 09.10.2015 for modification. One more reason whic....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 85 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Jaipur Nagar Nigam Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise-1, NCRB, C-Scheme, Jaipur And The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I, Jaipur, (Raj)

    Whether dismissal of appeal by rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law could not be countenanced and appeal needs to be restored to the file of the CESTAT for decision afresh affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant to secure the ends of justice? - Held that - Taking into account that the appellant is a local authority and the liability which is fast....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    R. Kanagavel Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, The Chief General Manager (Finance)

    Principles of Natural Justice - condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay in filing appeal due to sickness of petitioner - Held that - it appears that there is a mistake, which had occurred even at the stage of issuance of the SCN. However, had the petitioner been vigilant, he could have placed necessary material to show that he is not liable to pay the service tax as demanded by the first respondent. Nevertheless, due his ailment and since h....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Bharat Hotels Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication)

    Extended period of limitation - Penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of FA, 1994 - whether the Appellate Tribunal fell into error in holding that invocation of the extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act in respect of two services, i.e. management, maintenance and repair services and mandap keeper services is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? - Held that - it is evident that failure to pay tax is no....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Service Tax Versus P.S. Swaminathan

    Penalty - Renting of immovable property service - non-payment of service tax - intent to evade duty - Held that - Assessee had paid service tax of ₹ 23,34,424/-, and total interest paid was ₹ 9.95,980/-, which means, major portion of the service tax has already been paid, even before the introduction of the Finance Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the respondent/assessee to evade payment of....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1275 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

    C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Bilaspur Versus National Project Construction Corporation Ltd.

    Extended period of Limitation - Section 73 of the FA 1994 - Held that - the findings is sufficient enough to demonstrate that the ratio of Nizam s case 2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has been applied apparently without appreciating the relevance of that decision to the facts of the case in hand. - Decided in favor of Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Mrs. Hema Balasubramanian Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax, The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Miss. Ridhileka Goolahjith Nepaul

    Attachment of immovable property - recovery of service tax was not done - Held that - It is seen that, notice of demand to the defaulter/third respondent was issued only on 15.10.2012, from which, it is appears that the property was yet to be attached, and it was stated that steps would be taken to realize the amount by attaching the property. However, much prior to the said date, i.e., 20.07.2012, the property has been sold to the petitioner. Th....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities Operations Pvt Ltd

    100 EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that registration not done - N/N. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s.mPortal India Wireless Solutions Private Limited V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that Registration not compulsory for refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1136 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s Zain Refratek Pvt. Ltd. And Azghar Ahmed Versus Assistant Director Office of the Directorate General of Central Execise Intelligence, Mangalore

    Cognizance taken against the accused persons - section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - it is not a penal provision, wherein the Court can 958/2008, take cognizance of such provision. Even Section 14 of the Central Excise Act is tices with not a penal provision which only prescribes the procedure for summoning a witness - Section 14 of the Central Excise Act says that it is empowered to summ....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version