Circular No. 7(1)2012/RCs Review Meeting/345 dated 30th November, 2012 on Guidelines for Quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 80CCG of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the Rajiv Gandhi Equity Savings Scheme (RGESS). The purposes of the government behind such scheme are to provide tax benefits to investors investing directly and to lure investors in to stock market and broaden investor base in stocks.
The new charging section, section 66B, enables taxation of only such services as are provided in taxable territory. Thus services that are provided in a non-taxable territory are not chargeable to service tax.
HC held that CIT had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for approval under Section 10 (23C) (iv) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has not rendered its services directly to the farmers but is rendering its services directly to its clients/agents who are engaged in trading of the certified seeds with profit motive and therefore its activities are not for the ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’ and hence not for ‘charitable purpose’ in view of second limb of the first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act.
TAXABILITY OF SERVICE The taxability of services or the charge of service tax has been specified in section 66B of the Act. To be a taxable a service should be – provided or agreed to be provided by a person to another in the taxable territory and should not be specified in the negative list. […]
NEGATIVE LIST OF SERVICES Service tax will be leviable on all services provided in the taxable territory by a person to another for a consideration other than the services specified in the negative list. There are seventeen heads of services (A to Q) that have been specified in the negative list:- A. Services by Government […]
Having found a good case for the appellant on the question whether the order-in-original was issued and dispatched in accordance with the relevant provision of law, we have to remand this case to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to consider the assessee’s appeal filed against the order-in-original to have been filed within time and then to proceed to dispose it of on merits in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by way of remand for the aforesaid purpose. The stay application also stands disposed of.
Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund,
As regards telephone service, I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CC&E [2009] 20 STT 110 (Chennai – CESTAT) took a view that such credit is admissible. In the absence of any contrary decision, I follow the same and hold that the appellants are eligible for credit of service tax paid on telephone services in respect of telephone installed in the residence of employees.
Article 3(2) in most of the Treaties including the India-USA DTAA provides that any term not defined in the Convention shall unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning which it has under the laws of that State concerning tax to which the Convention applies.
