|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 94 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 (11) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT
Withdrawal of affidavit of valuation - Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Inasmuch as the operative portion of the order of CESTAT, which is under appeal, imposes a financial liability on the appellant, the affidavit of valuation that accompanied the appeals was in order and the request of the appellant to withdraw the affidavit so as to confine the Court Fee to the fixed amount of ₹ 10,000/- may not be legally sustainable. The appeal against Registrar Court’s order is dismissed.
- 2020 (8) TMI 789 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - Supply of tangible goods service - Supply of piped natural gas - Interpretation of statute - charges collected by the respondent for supply of pipes and measuring equipment to its customers - period from 16 May 2008 to 31 March 2009 - applicability of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 Whether Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 is applicable in the present case, that is, whether the supply of pipes and measurement equipment (SKID equipment), charged under the head of “gas connection charges” by the respondent to its industrial, commercial, and domestic consumers, amounts to supply of tangible goods for their use? HELD THAT:- Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act 1994 was introduced by Notification No.18/2008-S.T. with effect from 16 May 2008. Section 65(105)(zzzzj) le....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1482 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the pre-deposit - condonation of delay of 812 days in filing appeal - period 1 April, 2007 and 31 March, 2008 - HELD THAT:- The facts, as they emerged before the Court, indicate that the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed only on the ground of delay and failure of pre-deposit. The entire amount of tax, penalty and interest has been recovered. The submission of the assessee is that though it had preferred an appeal against the order dated 28 November, 2013, on the application for waiver of pre-deposit passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was dismissed on merits on 23 December, 2013. The assessee submits that he was under the bona fide belief that the appeal filed against the order on the stay petition would be listed and, hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal ....... + More
- 2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT
Club and association services - Doctrine of mutuality - Nature of transaction - sale or service - scope of sale and service - Failure to make payment of sales tax - sale of food and drinks to the permanent members during the quarter ending 30-6-2002 - scope of “sale“ in terms of Section 2(30) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Deemed transfer - club and association services -taxability under service tax - situation post 1/7/2012. HELD THAT:- When profits and gains of a mutual insurance company are sought to be brought to tax, they are so done by express reference to the fact that the business of insurance is carried on by a mutual insurance company. The absence of any such language in subclause (e) of Article 366(29-A) is also an important pointer to the fact that the doctrine of mutuality cannot be said to have been don....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 1213 - SUPREME COURT
Liability of tax - Monetary limit - Tour Operator Services - It is submitted that instead of multiplying the proceedings, it is but appropriate that the Department takes a holistic view of the matter and make appropriate statement before this Court on the next occasion - HELD THAT:- We defer the hearing of these matters till 7th November, 2019, to be listed in the miscellaneous list under caption ’For Directions’.
- 2019 (8) TMI 1377 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of order of CESTAT - appeal came to be dismissed on the specious ground that the issues raised in the appeals have already been adjudicated by the High Court - HELD THAT:- There are no hesitation in taking the view that the subject matter before the High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition, which was filed by the assessee, was limited to the claim of refund which was rejected by the department. The observations made in the judgment of the High Court, therefore, will have to be understood only in that context; and not as having adjudicated the correctness of the order passed by the adjudicating authority, which was the subject matter of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the department. The impugned order deserves to be set aside and parties relegated before the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of the appeals on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court - Appeal restored.
- 2019 (2) TMI 1675 - SUPREME COURT
Method of Valuation - Section 4 or 4A of CEA, 1944? - Odomos Repellant Cream supplied by the appellant to Armed Forces/ Para Military Forces for their use - applicability of Section 4 or 4A of CEA, 1944? - it was held that the entire supply are made to Armed Forces and Para Military Forces for their use only and there is no sale, valuation to be done u/s 4A of CEA - HELD THAT:- There is no merits in the present appeal. Admission refused - appeal dismissed.
- 2019 (2) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - issue relating to Classification of services - cargo handling service or GTA Service - respondent is an association, whose members are transport operators engaged in the business of transportation of goods entrusted by the customers - Held that:- It is not in dispute that if the show cause notices culminate into an order, the appeal would lie to this Court. When the show cause notices are issued to respondent nos.2 and 3-members, the writ petition is filed by the first respondent-association and the recipients of show cause notices who are respondent nos.2 and 3. As we are not in agreement with the view taken by the High Court, in entertaining the writ petition against show cause notices, we refrain from recording any finding on contentious issues which arise for consideration. If any finding is recorded by thi....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 1675 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Section 73(1) of the FA, 1994 - Port Services - Renting of Immoveable Property services - HELD THAT:- Apart from the fact that there is a delay of 639 days in filing the appeal for which no satisfactory explanation is given, there are no merits in the appeal - Civil Appeal is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
- 2018 (5) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT
Renting of immovable property service - whether “service tax” under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 on renting of immovable property or any other service in relation to such renting, for use in the course of or, for furtherance of, business or commerce is within the legislative competence of the Union Parliament? Held that: - The question is directly relatable to the scope and ambit of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India dealing with “Taxes on lands and buildings”. If the impost/levy is directly relatable to the lands/buildings contemplated in Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India we would have had no hesitation in saying that the Union Parliament would lack legislative competence to enact the particular provision in the Finance Act, 1994. These matters....... + More
- 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - reimbursement of expenses - includibility - Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - whether Section 67 of the Act permits the subordinate legislation to be enacted in the said manner, as done by Rule 5? Held that: - The plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 01, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 01, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much beyond the mandate of Section 67 - High Court was right in interpreting Sections 66 and 67 to say that in the valuation of taxable service, the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by the service provider ‘for such service’ and the valuation of tax service cannot be anything more or les....... + More
- 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation of taxable service - works Contract - inclusion of FOC material - Section 67 of Finance Act - Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - lot of materials/goods are also used in the construction of building or civil structure - includibility of material/goods element - N/N. 15/2004-ST dated September 10, 2004 - whether the value of goods/materials supplied or provided free of cost by a service recipient and used for providing the taxable service of construction or industrial complex, is to be included in computation of gross amount charged by the service provider, for valuation of taxable service? Held that: - For valuation of taxable service, provision is made in Section 67 of the Act which enumerates that it would be ‘the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided by him&....... + More
- 2018 (2) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT
GTA Service - whether the category of “Goods Transport Agency” is exigible to service tax as per Section 65(105) (zzp) and Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act as well as Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994? - Held that: - the High Court was required to decide as to whether the services provided by the respondent(s)/assessee(s) herein are covered by the aforesaid definitions. The High Court has not discussed the aforesaid issue - the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2017 (12) TMI 969 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of High Court order - the SCN dated 4th October, 2016 issued to the respondent proposing levy of service tax has been set aside with liberty to the appellants to issue a fresh SCN - Held that: - the High Court ought not to have set aside the SCN dated 4th October, 2016 in its entirety and directed issuance of fresh SCN. The High Court ought to have kept in mind the question of limitation and on that basis ordered for adjudication of the issues/demands raised in the show cause notice dated 4th October, 2016 which survive and required an adjudication on merits. The SCN dated 4th October, 2016 in so far as the surviving issues/demands are concerned shall be adjudicated subject to such contentions as may be advanced on behalf of the respondent in its reply/additional reply that may be filed in the matter. Appeal allowed.
- 2017 (11) TMI 444 - SUPREME COURT
Renting of immovable property - levy of service tax - lease rentals - who is liable to bear the burden of tax i.e. the provider of services (lessor) or the recipient of services (the lassee) - scope of agreement - lease (rent) deed does not refer to service tax. Held that: - It is clear, on a conspectus of the authorities of this Court, that service tax is an indirect tax, meaning thereby that the said tax can be passed on by the service provider to the recipient of the service. Being a tax on service, it is not a direct tax on the service provider but is a value added tax in the nature of a consumption tax on the activity which is by way of service. It is settled by various judgments of this Court that, in order to have conceptual clarity, the taxable event and the taxable person are distinct concepts. In Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co. v. ....... + More
- 2017 (8) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT
Belated appeal - Import of services before 1.4.2006 - Business Auxiliary Service - commission paid to overseas agents - service tax was paid but no interest and penalty - maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that: - The Joint Commissioner had passed the orders on February 27, 2008. No statutory appeal was preferred by the appellant challenging that order. The writ petition was filed only in March, 2012. During this period, the appellant was also making payment towards service tax demanded by the respondents without challenging the order. The appellant now wants to take advantage of other litigation pending in respect of same subject matter. When the appellant had not challenged the demand and was merely sitting on the fence, watching the proceedings in other similar cases, the decision in those cases cannot furn....... + More
- 2017 (7) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of services - mining service or GTA Service - Transportation of coal - Whether the goods i.e. coal transported by the respondent–Singh Transporters from the pit-heads to the railway sidings would fall within taxable service as defined under Section 65(105) (zzzy) of the Service Tax Act of 1994 or as defined under Section 65(105)(zzp) of the Act? - definition of the term 'mines” under Section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 - Held that: - a mine is not to be understood necessarily in respect of pit-heads of the mining area or the excavation or drilling underground, as may be, but also to the peripheral area on the surface. The said definition has no apparent nexus with the activity undertaken and the service rendered - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2017 (7) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
Nature of activity of "chit fund business" - cash management / fund management - whether classifiable under the category of "banking and other financial services" - admittedly upto June 14, 2007, chit fund business was not exigible to service tax. Likewise, from July 01, 2012 to June 14, 2015, no service tax was payable. Present dispute concerns the intervening period from June 15, 2007 to June 30, 2012 - It has been brought specifically within the definition of service by the aforesaid amendment which takes effect from June 15, 2015. Therefore, there is no dispute that w.e.f. June 15, 2015, service tax is payable on chit fund. Held that:- whenever a person is having idle cash or unrealised dues and wants the same to be utilised in a proper and fruitful manner, managing the said idle cash would amount to cash managemen....... + More
- 2017 (3) TMI 1418 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay - delay with explanation which is certainly less satisfying than required by law - Held that: - for that reason the claim of the State shall not be defeated as the claim is huge (about Rupees Sixty Six Crores approximately) and it would be against the larger public interest to reject the examination of the correctness of the judgment under appeal - we deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to the condition that the appellant pays costs quantified at ₹ 2,00,000/- to the respondent - We also deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to identify the officers who are responsible for such inordinate delay and recover the amount of costs from them - delay condoned - appeal allowed.
- 2017 (3) TMI 934 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of services - whether the service rendered by the appellant amounts to “cargo handling service” within the meaning of Section 2(23) of the Finance Act, 1994 or the "packaging activity"? - Held that: - A careful reading of Section 65(23) of the Act, which defines Cargo Handling Service would go to show that though the word packing is included therein, the same is referable to the word “Cargo” whereas in Section 65(76b) “Packing Activity” is defined to mean “Packaging of Goods” - the appellant has nothing to do with the transportation of goods which it packs within the factory unit of the principal manufacturer prior to the goods leaving the factory. It is nobody's case before us that the appellant is a cargo handling agency. All activity undertaken by the appellant, though related to packing activity, is at a stage when the ....... + More
|
