As regards the financial difficulty, I have gone through the Income Tax return for the year 2010-2011 and I find that acceding to the Income Tax return, the appellant had invested in equity shares amounting to more than Rs. 4.7 lakhs. In view of the fact that the demand of Service Tax is of Rs. 2.31 lakhs, it cannot be said that the appellant is in such a financial position that he cannot pay this amount.
Whatever was submitted to the department was rebate claim under Notification No.21/2004 after the refund claim was rejected. The rebate claim has been correctly rejected on the ground that the procedure as set out under Notification No.21/2004 has not been followed.
This Stay Petition is been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts of Service Tax confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority. The Service Tax has been confirmed by adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority, on the ground that the appellant are liable to discharge Service Tax liability on NSE/BSE transaction charges and SEBI turnover fees.
Service Tax dispute: S.S. Construction vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Remanded for reconsideration. Balance-sheet vs ST-3 Returns. Get details on TaxGuru.in.
As submitted by the learned counsel in respect of FOB exports, the place of removal has to be treated as the Port. Further input service definition is an inclusive definition of services used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and clearance and also relating to business activities and specified categories would be admissible.
The modus operandi of the appellants, which we have briefly stated herein before, is crystal clear. They were not purchasing and selling immovable properties. They were only holding ‘General Power of Attorney’ of the property owners and, in that capacity, selling the property to M/s Sahara India .
Learned CA submits that the maintenance of DG sets is essentially and integrally connected to rendering the business and no export of service can take place if there is no uninterrupted power supply and, therefore, the said services should be treated as ‘input services’. We are prima facie, in agreement with views expressed by learned CA that the impugned services could be treated as ‘input services’ in respect of services rendered by the appellant.
The disputed amount has not been realized as service tax from the person to whom service is provided. It is also to be noted that appellant had not filed a service tax return and the amount deposited in that tax account of the Government becomes payment towards service tax only when return is filed. Therefore, in this case, it is a strictly not a refund of service tax paid.
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed as reported at 2012 (25) J514 (SC). So we consider that this matter is no longer res integra and service tax can be demanded under section 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
As per Section 65(105)(zzzn) the activity undertaken by the applicant is a sponsorship activity but same is specifically exempt if same is undertaken in relation to sponsorship of the sports events. The above said activity came into taxable event with effect from 1.7.2010 when an exemption for sponsorship of sports event has been withdrawn.
