Service Tax India: Read the latest service tax notification, challan, news & updates, circulars, act, rules, articles & forms on Taxguru.in. ST1 ST2 ST3 payment challan budget amendments, place of provision, point of taxation.
Service Tax : Understand the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Vishal Tansukhbhai Gohel vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. No service tax on freig...
Service Tax : CESTAT Mumbai, in Tata AIG case, rules credit can't be denied for incorrect service description on invoices when correct service t...
Service Tax : CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Shakti Enterprise vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST clarifies that CHA's reimbursable expenses are...
Service Tax : Dive into the legal battle over corporate guarantees' taxability as Business Auxiliary Service. Explore the CESTAT's decision, the...
Service Tax : Learn about a CESTAT ruling regarding service tax on advance membership fees collected by clubs. Analysis and implications include...
Service Tax : [Screening, Diagnosis & Management of Mucormycosis (black fungus)] Mucormycosis – if uncared for – may turn fatal ...
Service Tax : Chartered Accountants Association, Jalandhar has made a representation to FM regarding Misuse of Official Position by making rovin...
Service Tax : Officers of CGST Delhi North Commissionerate have arrested one Director of a Company for evasion of Service Tax. The Company had...
Service Tax : A suitable amnesty scheme must be thought of for all Central Laws and State Laws which have been merged in GST in one go to reduce...
Service Tax : Section 16 of CAG’s (DPC) Act, 1971 mandates CAG to audit receipts payable into consolidated fund of India and to satisfy that t...
Service Tax : CESTAT set aside demand of service tax on amounts received as booking cancellation charges, price difference & corporate discount,...
Service Tax : CESTAT Bangalore held that that service tax on commission paid to foreign commission agents is payable under reverse charge only ...
Service Tax : CESTAT quashes service tax demand against Yatra Online Pvt Ltd, ruling that convenience and cancellation fees are not connected to...
Service Tax : Zest Buildtek Promotors Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)Issuance of attachment order under provi...
Service Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd vs Commr. of CGST (CESTAT Kolkata) where Kolkata CESTAT ruled that n...
Service Tax : Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority in respect of SCNs issued to M/s Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. vide Order No. 08/202...
Service Tax : Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in respect of SCNs issued to M/s A.K. Construction Co. vide Order No. 07 /2023-...
Service Tax : Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in respect of SCNs issued to M/s Hi-tech Equipment Services vide Order No. 06/2...
Service Tax : Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in respect of SCNs issued to M/s Subhash Earthmovers vide Order No. 05/2023-Ser...
Service Tax : CBIC earlier noted that the practice of payment of Service tax by way of book adjustment adopted by the Department of Posts and th...
Even if it was accepted that the canteen service provided by the assessee was necessary for improving the efficiency of the worker and the same was eligible for Cenvat credit but in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. – CESTAT) there is no dispute about the fact that as part of the cost of providing canteen service had been recovered from the workers and to that extent the assessee would not be eligible for the Cenvat credit.
There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
The appellants were engaged in the business of renting out low-floor buses to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSTRC) on contract basis. RSTRC was using the buses as stage carriers for transportation of persons. The appellants did not pay service tax on the consideration received from RSTRC during the period 01-06-2007 to 31-12-2007.
The activity rendered by the assessee was of purchasing of prepaid SIM cards from mobile company and selling them to the ultimate customers or through dealers. For doing such an activity, the mobile company given an amount as a commission which according to the revenue was liable for service tax. The issue involved in the instant case was of service tax liability on the commission received which was the question in dispute before the Tribunal in various matters.
In this appeal of the department, the short question to be considered is whether the view taken by the lower authorities that the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit on stockbroker’s service which was used by the respondent for acquiring shares in another company with which the respondent had entered into an agreement for purchase of electricity for the purpose of manufacture of excisable product is correct or not.
The appellant was a franchisee of BCCI-IPL and received payment from BCCI-IPL as its share in receipts towards media rights and other income collected centrally by BCCI-IPL. The key issue in the appeal was whether the amount received by the appellant from BCCI-IPL liable to service tax as business support services provided to BCCI-IPL.
The assessee contested that the impugned activity was a joint business involving no service from one party to other. Therefore in view of CBEC circular 108/2/009 dated 29-1-2009 no service tax arises in such context. The main contention was there that was a joint venture between the landowners and the assessee where profit of the joint venture was shared by both the parties. The landowner made available his land and the assessee did construction activity and constructed flats were divided in a ratio agreed at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement. It could not be considered that the assessee was providing any service to the landowners. The assessee was paying back the consideration for his share of the land which he bought through the Development Agreement by compensating in the form of flats constructed and handed over to the landowners.
Applicants have availed the taxable services and the persons which were supplied like Yoga teacher, Poojari, Cook, Compounder, Nurse, helper etc. have no direct nexus with manufacture of final product. Therefore, prima facie, we find that the applicant has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit of duty. Hence, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs within a period of six weeks. On deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty, interest and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during pendency of the appeal.
If the intention of the legislature was to align the exemption with section 26 of the SEZ Act or Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, then notification No. 4/2004-ST would have been amended to reflect the same. No such amendment has been carried out in the said notification. In these circumstances, we are of the view that if the services are not consumed within the Special Economic zone, then the benefit of notification No. 4/2004-ST will not be available.
As regards the penalty set aside by first appellate authority under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, for the quarter ending 30.09.2006, I find from the Form ST-3 return produced by ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the said form specifically indicate the taxable service rendered from April 2006 to September 2006 is Nil. Such return has been filed with the lower authorities on 25.09.2006.
