The purported classification only on the basis of language without anything more and in particular having regard to the difference in the rate of tax, in our opinion is ex-facie arbitrary. The burden was, therefore, on the State to show that the imposition was justified.
It is evident that fee which has been named as ‘success fee’ by the assessee has been paid to the NRC. It is to be seen whether the payment made to the non-resident would be covered under the expression “fee for technical service” as contained in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the assessee seeks permission to withdraw this Special Leave Petition in view of the fact that assessee’s appeal, bearing No. IT No.63/2012-2013 is pending before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the Order of re-assessment dated 29th May, 2012.
State has a responsibility towards the citizen, who should not treated as opposite party or rival. It is not proper to take every case in appeal up to apex court mechanically, simply because there is a provision in Civil Procedure Code.
In the case of BCCI Vs. CST Hon’ble SC held that the activity of producing audio-visual coverage of ‘Indian Premier League’ cricket matches held in India by non -resident service providers would be liable to tax under ‘programme production services’ and BCCI was liable to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism.
In August,2014, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M/S TRAVELITE (INDIA) pronounced that the service tax audits conducted u/r 5A(2) of Service tax rules, 1994 are not valid in law.
In the instant case, there is absolutely no legal evidence on the record to prove the secret books of account, the seizure of which was effected by or under the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were recovered from a place which formed part of the business premises of the respondents or. was in their exclusive possession and control.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a landmark verdict in the matter of STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD. & pronounced that the mobile/cell phone charger is an accessory to cell phone and is not a part of the cell phone.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court HELD Merely because the respondent is the State, delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot and shall not be mechanically considered and in absence of sufficient cause’ delay shall not be condoned.
