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 : The Bombay High Court ruled that legal services provided by an advocate to a partnership firm of advocates are exempt under servic...
Service Tax : The Court held that booking speakers for an event does not amount to event management. Participation or facilitation alone cannot ...
Service Tax : Supreme Court reaffirms Service Tax applicability on export cargo handling services by Airports Authority of India under Airport S...
Service Tax : Under India’s earlier service tax regime, legal services initially enjoyed complete exemption from taxation. This position chang...
Service Tax : CESTAT rules that affiliation fees collected by universities are statutory functions, not taxable services. Service tax demand and...
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 : The CESTAT Chennai held that where service tax was not separately recovered from recipients, the gross receipts must be treated as...
Service Tax : The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax order due to an inordinate delay of nearly four years. The Cour...
Service Tax : The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the presc...
Service Tax : CESTAT Delhi set aside the refund rejection order after finding that issues relating to double payment of service tax and CENVAT c...
Service Tax : CESTAT ruled that the Department failed to consider ST-3 returns and service tax already discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal ...
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...
So far as the penalties are concerned, we do appreciate that the learned Commissioner has considered waiver but the reasoning for the waiver is not acceptable to us. We make it clear that when there is a levy of tax, liveability of penalty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The reimbursement issue has travelled with lot of controversies till conclusions by Larger Bench. Learned Counsel says even the dispute has gone to Apex Court. Appreciating the difficulties faced by the assessee at the infancy stage which is reasonable cause, there shall be no levy of penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, in the present case. But we confirm penalty levied under section 77 of the said Act, since liability for payment has ensued with obligation for registration arose.
After hearing the learned SDR, we find that in page Nos. 238 to 245 the appellant had produced various certificates before the adjudicating authority from the original contractor. These certificates indicate that the original contractor has discharged the service tax liability on the part of the work executed by appellant. If that be so, in our view the appellant need not be burdened with service tax liability.
Perusal of the show-cause notice indicates that the appellant had realised service tax from his client but did not deposit. The mitigating factors of financial condition and illness could have been received consideration, had the appellant not realised service from its clients. Since service tax was realised and that was with the appellant, keeping such public money the appellant does not require any consideration for total waiver of penalty. Only looking to the cooperative attitude of the appellant, it may not be proper to penalise under section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Simultaneously, to remove hardship, it would be proper to direct the appellant to deposit 25% of the demand towards penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 within 30 days of receipt of this order. If there is no deposit, this order shall stand vacated and Revenue shall be free to realise its entire dues in accordance with law.
Counsel submits that service of the courier was used for dispatch of the samples to abroad. When courier service is connected with export and relevancy thereof was not doubted, the appellant cannot be denied relief of credit relating to tax paid for appropriate consequence under different law. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without looking into strength of evidence filed, recorded that the appellant failed to correlate the invoices by the courier services with the export of goods.
Appellants are engaged in business of manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). While supplying the goods they delivered it at the desired location on site by pumping of the RMC to the spot where it was required. Revenue has made out a case that this activity is covered under ‘Commercial & Industrial Construction Services’ and imposed service tax on the entire consideration received for RMC after allowing the abatement of 67% under Notification No.l/06-ST.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the credit is mostly in respect of capital goods only and there is only a small portion of credit attributable to input services. He submits that the portion of Rule 6(3)(c) will apply only in respect of credit taken in respect of inputs and input services and not capital goods. When such credit alone is considered, the utilization is well within the prescribed limit in the said Rule and therefore, demand is not maintainable.
Assessing authority has himself extended the benefit to storage tank storing water as a component to main machinery namely, boiler, he ought to have extended the benefit to the storage tanks which are also part of the factory premises, in which the by products are stored and thereafter sold as a finished product.
Subsequent to the operationlisation of the Negative List, a number of issues have been raised in relation to the manpower supply or the services provided by the directors of a company or by the employer to the employees. These issues have been examined and are proposed to be clarified as follows:
The appellants were sending their manager/ employees to hotels run by the subsidiary/ associate companies on deputation. They were recovering costs on actual basis and were not retaining any amount out of the payment made by the hotels run by the subsidiary/ associate companies. The contention of the Department is that the appellants were engaged in manpower supply service as they were supplying their manpower to hotels run by associate companies on a cost recovery basis.
Exemptions and beneficial amendments are always prone to litigation – whether it is due to ambiguous language or due to creative interpretational skills of Revenue officers. Whatever be the reason, the departmental authorities are always less interested in extending the benefit of exemptions to the assessees. One such beneficial provision is being inserted in the negative list which exempts the processes that amount to manufacture or production from the levy under service tax. This piece of diction is about probable litigation on this item of negative list.
