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...
Any order for imposing penalty specially the heavy once qas provided under Section 76 and 77, of the Act should show the reason justifying the imposition of penalty and thus following the principles of justice done. It is a fact on record that the Appellants had asked for clarification regarding availability of benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.6.03 from the department time and time again but as no response was made to their request under a bona fide belief of availability of said exemption notification had availed the benefit of said exemption notification.
It is undisputed that the appellant is a State Government entity and has been providing services of testing and certifying the quality of the seeds in the State. We find that the appellant was informed on 01.08.2006 by the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax that their activities would not fall under the category of services rendered and they would not be covered under the Service Tax.
The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner under section 84 as this section stood prior to 19-8-2009. It was passed on 24-3-2011. With effect from 19-8-2009, the date on which a new appellate remedy was granted in the place of the erstwhile revisionary remedy against orders passed by Central Excise officers subordinate to Commissioner of Central Excise, section 84 offers appellate remedy against an order passed by an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The provision for revision of such an order by the Commissioner ceased to be in force on 19-8-2009.
A partnership which admits a partner in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash does not effect towards that person a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
The appellant has placed on record the authorization letter dated 15.3.2005 addressed by PBPL to Assistant /Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Varanasi authorising the appellant to manufacture biscuit on their behalf. Further perusal of the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between PBPL and the appellant would show that as per the job work contract the appellant were required to process and manufacture biscuit, carry out inspection, packing and delivery to various depot of PBPL located all over the country as directed by PBPL.
Provisions of the section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 will apply in full force in this case, as there is payment of entire amount of service tax liability and interest thereof before the issuance of show cause notice (SCN). In my view, it is a fit case wherein the proceedings initiated against the assessee for the imposition of penalties, under various sections needs to be set aside and I do so.
The ld. A.R. submits that penalties have been imposed because they did not pay in time the tax due. We find that there is no case for imposing penalty for an amount more than net tax liability. So the penalty under Section 78 is reduced to Rs. 18,889/-. Further, penalty under Section 76 is waived and also the appellant is given an opportunity to pay 25% of the penalty under Section 78 in 30 days of receipt of the order. If such payment is not made in such timeframe full penalty will be payable.
Issue involved in this case is regarding the bona fide belief of the assessee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the activity of receiving commission from the bankers for providing the help of identifying the purchasers of the vehicles and completing all the formalities was in dispute before the Tribunal. The said dispute got settled against the assessee. In my considered view, the appellant M/s. Rajesh Auto Finance/Shri Rajesh Biharilal Gandhi would have entertained a bona fide belief that the services rendered by them are not liable to service tax under the category of business auxiliary services.
Appellants have filed a writ petition against the stay order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Tribunal and Hon’ble Madras High Court had dismissed the writ petition. As the order passed by the Tribunal is merged with the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, hence the Tribunal has no power to modify the stay order dated 13.10.2011. Further, we note that the vide order dated 19.12.2011 has granted time to make deposit as per the stay order passed by the Tribunal by 30.01.2012 and the appellants had not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act.
Since a substantial amount has already been paid and regarding the balance amount also the appellant claims to have paid but does not have the evidence in view of the destruction of documents in flood, I consider that the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of service tax demanded with interest and penalty is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal.
