New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 415 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (5) TMI 415 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 424 (Kar.) - Indian subsidiary providing marketing support services for the products manufactured outside India - AAR held that service is not taxable in India - Held that:- No interference is called for with the order of the Authority which is impugned in this writ petition. An order which has been passed on a concession given by the Commissioner cannot be challenged by the Commissioner himself. It is not the case of the writ petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow turn around and challenge the said order which was passed by the Authority on the basis of his own statement. - Even on merits, what is being canvassed before this Court in the writ petition is something which was not raised before the Authority - Decided against Revenue. - Writ Petition No. 57422 of 2013 (CESTAT) - Dated:- 8-4-2015 - Vineet Saran And S. Sujatha,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi , Adv. For the Respondent : Sri Prasad Paranjape & Sri P Dinesh, Advs. ORDER The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e India and sold to the customers in India by M/ s.Tandus Flooring U.S. located in USA and M/ s.Tandus Flooring China, located in China. The respondent-Company is to undertake the responsibility of providing market and support services in relation to the carpets and floor coverings proposed to be sold by Tandus U.S. and Tandus China to the customers located in India through their own dealers or directly. In consideration of the services to be provided by the respondent-Company, it was to receive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994' for brevity) seeking an advance ruling on the following questions: Question No.1 : What would be the place of provision of the marketing and support services provided by Tandus India to Tandus US and Tandus China in terms of the Place of Provision of Service Rules 2012 (introduced vide Notification No.28/2012-S.T. Dated 20.06.2012) Question No.2 : Whether the marketing and support services provided by Tandus India to Tandus US and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of the Finance Act, 1994 and also on the concession made by the Commissioner of Service Tax, the Authority answered the said questions in the following manner: 1. The place of provision of service to be provided by the applicant to Tandus China and Tandus US shall be the location of the service recipients, i.e. in China and US respectively, in accordance with Rule 3 of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012; and 2. The provision of service by the applicant to the two recipients named a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner is two fold : Firstly, that the case on hand was covered by the exception carved out by Rule 9(c) of the Rules of 2012 and as such, the non-applicability of service tax on the respondent-Company was not justified in law; and secondly, that the concession given by the Commissioner of Service Tax (writ petitioner) was in ignorance of or without considering the subsequent Circular dated 13.05.2011, which had clarified the earlier Circular dated 24.02.2009. 5. Learned Counsel for the responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as it existed on the date of the Ruling, would not cover the respondent-Company and as such, the provisions of Rule 9(c) of the Rules of 2012, would not be applicable and was thus, rightly not considered by the Authority nor the applicability of the said provision was ever raised by the petitioner (Commissioner of Service Tax) before the Authority. 7. Sri Prasad Paranjape , learned Counsel for the respondent has however submitted that the definition of 'intermediary' given in Rule 2 (f) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with the order of the Authority which is impugned in this writ petition. An order which has been passed on a concession given by the Commissioner cannot be challenged by the Commissioner himself. It is not the case of the writ petitioner (Commissioner) that certain material and the relevant Circulars were placed before the Authority and were not considered. After considering the entire case on merits and deciding in favour of the respondent-Company, the questions raised were answered in favour o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y has considered the provisions of Rule 6A of the Rules of 1994, relating to Export of services and after holding that the respondent satisfies all the conditions laid down in clauses (a) to (f) of the subrule (1) of Rule 6A of the Rules of 1994, it proceeded to answer the questions in favour of the assessee. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the place of provision of service, would, in the present case, be within India and not outside India, by virtue o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version