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

2016 (6) TMI 877 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 877 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 321 (Kar.) - Refund - Validity of order of tribunal remanding the matter back to adjudicating officer - Tribunal did not examine the aspects as to the output services - Held that:- the Tribunal has relegated the matter for finding/ascertaining the nexus between input service and the output services which would be required to be examined by the authorities. When the Tribunal was satisfied that the matter deserves further examination on fa .....

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 Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has set aside the orders of the lower authority and remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the admissibility of the refund claims afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that 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

tter is remanded to the authority to decide the admissibility of the refund claims in light of the observations made. 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The learned Counsel fairly conceded that the present matter is covered by the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Narus Networks Pvt. Ltd., in CEA No.44/2015 decided on 14.03.2016. 4. We may record that this Court in the above referred decision had observed thus: T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unal did not examine the aspects as to the output services could be said as service or not and another was that, the Tribunal ought not have remanded the matter. Hence, he sought that this Court may interfere. 4. We may record that, in CEA 5/16 in case of Principal Commissioner of Service-Tax vs. mPortal decided on 9.3.2016, one of the contentions raised was as has been raised in the present matter. However, at the relevant point of time, the service was not a service reckoned for the purpose of .....

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