Case Law Details
Case Name : PSN Automobiles Private Limited Vs. UOI & CBIC (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Kerala High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
PSN Automobiles Private Limited Vs. UOI & CBIC (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam)
Petitioner, has submitted that the amount of 1% the dealer collects from the purchaser of a car worth more than ten lakhs, under Section 206C(1F) of the Income Tax Act, cannot be treated as an integral part of the value of the goods and services supplied by the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner, as the dealer of the motor vehicle, acts only as an agent for the State to collect the income tax under Section 206C(1F)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
It’s a deeper legal issue. Logically TCS should be excluded from value of services as it is not being charged from customer for goods but because of a requirement of law it is being collected and deposited in the income tax account of customer. So it should be excluded. Gst act should be amended or be interpreted this way
It is the Income Tax Department which is using the services of the dealer to collect tax on its behalf.Why shouldn’t the IT dept pay the Service Tax onunder GST.
This judgement is against the concept of GST.
GST concept is not to charge tax on tax and avoid double taxation.
Exhibit of real Invoice by example could have been shown for readers understanding and the contention raised in the petition.
is it applicable on Goods and service or only on motor vehicle in Delhi?