Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (3) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ffence with retrospective effect as found in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. - Writ petition dismissed - Decided against the assessee. - W.P. No. 14658 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2011 - Sushil Harkauli and K.K. Trivedi, JJ. Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Counsel with Abhishek Oswal, for the Petitioner. Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Shri G.N. Purohit, learned senior counsel with Shri Abhishek Oswal for the petitioner. 2. Shri S.A. Dharamadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This bunch of writ petitions challenges the imposition of service tax on renting of immovable property. 4. By the Constitution 88th Amendment Act, 2003, a new entry 92C was introduced in List I of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll as retrospectively of the same is under challenge. The challenge is primarily based on the same argument which were advanced and accepted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Home Solutions Retail India Limited (supra). 10. It has also been argued that retrospectivity was not permissible because this amendment to the definition of taxable service is not merely clarificatory but brings about a substantive liability of taxation upon the service providers. It has also been contended that by giving a retrospective effect to this amendment to the definition of taxable service , the service provider is also saddled with liability to pay interest as well as penalty on the default in payment of service tax for the past period. These issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2004 (5) SCC 632 = 2006 (3) S.T.R. 260 (S.C.) = 2004 (167) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 54 and 55 of that law report as under : 54. Therefore, a levy of service tax on a particular kind of service could not be struck down on the ground that it does not conform to a common understanding of the word service so long as it does not transgress any specific restriction contained in the Constitution. 55. In fact, making available a premises for a period of a few hours for the specific purpose of being utilized as a mandap whether with or without other services would itself be a service and cannot be classified as any other kind of legal concept. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates