Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 145 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2004

Federation Of Hotels And Restaurants ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 August, 2016

56. The Supreme Court applied pith and substance doctrine and concluded that "the manner of service provided assumes predominance over the providing of food in such situations which is a definite indicator of the supremacy of the service aspect." For good measure the Supreme Court held: "The concept of catering admittedly includes the concept of rendering service. The fact that tax on the sale of the goods involved in the said service can be levied does not mean that a service tax cannot be levied on the service aspect of catering." What the decision therefore does is to highlight the possibility of splitting up of the composite transaction into the provision of service element and the supply of food. The Respondents are justified in contending that as far as the interpretation of Article 366 (29A) (f) of the Constitution is concerned, the decision in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India (supra) fully supports their stand.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S. Madras Hire Purchase Association vs Union Of India on 9 June, 2009

In (Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association vs. Union of India) (2004) 167 ELT 3 (SC); (Gujarat Ambuja Cements vs. Union of India) (2005) 4 SCC 214; All-India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India, 2007 (7) SCC 527and (C.K. Jidheesh vs. Union of India) (2008) (1) STR 3 (SC) the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence of the parliament to levy service tax under a residuary entry 92 to List I of VII Schedule of the Constitution and necessary constitutional amendments were made and Entry 92 (c) was introduced to List I giving authority to the Parliament to legislate on service tax.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jindal Hotels Ltd vs Vadodara-I on 9 January, 2024

As regards the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC Ltd.) v. Govt. ofNCT of Delhi & Others (supra) cited by the Appellant, on going through this judgment, we find that in this case, in para 39 of the judgment, Hon'ble Court has given a clear finding that providing of food, snacks and water to the passengers on board the trains is altogether different from outdoor catering service and Hon'ble 14 | P a g e ST/11315/2016-DB Supreme Court's judgment in case of Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India (supra) is not applicable to providing of food, snacks and water to passengers on board the trains and the same is pure sale of goods.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Carlsberg India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 August, 2016

48. Learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to draw a distinction between the type of activity in each of the above cases, which according to him involved more than one distinct aspect and the present case which did not. It was submitted that in T.N. Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India (supra) service tax was sought to be levied on 'letting out of mandap' and incidental services traceable to Entry 97 of List I whereas the competing entries that were distinct were tax on sale of food (Entry 54 List II), and tax on land (Entry 49 List II).
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S. Reliance Security Agency vs Union Of India on 23 December, 2011

12. As observed by the Apex Court in T.N. Kalyana W.P.(C) Nos. 34643 OF 2004, 9591 OF 2005 & 36470 OF 2009 15 Mandapam Assn. vs. Union of India and others (2004)5 SCC 632 ), Service Tax is an indirect tax and the role of the service provider is only to have it collected on behalf of the revenue. The service provider is expected to collect it from the client. The observations of the Apex Court in this context are worthwhile to be noted, as extracted below:
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document

Cinemax vs Union on 23 August, 2011

The Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India, reported in [2004] 5 SCC 632, has already held that levy of service of particular kind of service would not be struck down on the ground that it does not conform to a common understanding of the word 'service' so long it does not transgress any specific restriction contained in the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 September, 2013

12.?As observed by the Apex Court in T.N. Kalyana Mandapam Assn. v. Union of India and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 632 = 2006 (3) S.T.R. 260 (S.C.) = 2004 (167) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Service tax is an indirect tax and the role of the service provider is only to have it collected on behalf of the Revenue. The service provider is expected to collect it from the client. The observations of the Apex Court in this context are worthwhile to be noted, as extracted below :
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Infotech Software Dealers Association vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2010

28. A similar question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 632. The question arose for consideration was as to whether the service tax introduced vide Finance Act, 1994 pursuant to Entry 97 of List I of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India on a kalyana mantap on consideration received for allowing temporary occupation of the mantap for organising any official, social or business function and is not a tax on goods and or land, both of which are State subjects or can be brought under the residuary Entry 97 of List I. On posing a question as to whether the imposition of service tax on the service rendered by the mantap-keepers are intra vires of the Constitution and can be justified for such levy under the residuary Entry 97 of List I of VII Schedule, ultimately, held that keeping the nature of the services rendered, the Parliament did not lack legislative competency. In this regard, the Apex Court had observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 10 - D Murugesan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next