Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Kumar Bansal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 June, 2016

The Housing Board vs Panchkula on 6 August, 2024

It is a well-settled principle that in matters of taxation either the statute or the Rules framed under the statute must cover the entire field. Taxation by way of administrative instructions which are not backed by any authority of law is unreasonable and is contrary to Article 37 ST/60139-60140/2016 ST/60112-60113/2020 ST/60163-60164/2020 265 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned circulars are set aside as also the impugned orders of assessment. The assessee‟s liability to pay tax remains but in order to assess that the State has to act in accordance with the statutory prescription by framing Rules under its rule-making power under Section 29 of the Act and the assessing authority can pass fresh orders of assessment on the basis of such statutory Rules." 7.4 Further, we find that this issue has been settled by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs. UOI (supra), wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has held in para 53 to para 55 as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Projects Ltd vs Medchal - G S T on 26 June, 2025

35. In this regard, Learned Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant entered into agreement with land owners on 07.09.2010 and entitled to a share of 50% of the super built up area and sold 3 flats of their share receiving consideration. The construction activity of the appellant in respect of residential complex is taxable under the category of Works Contract Service. Learned CA argued that for the Project Srinivasa Krupa, the service tax was demanded on total sale price of unit of construction and sold, the value of sale deed need to be excluded, since the show cause notice was issued under Section 73(1a) of the Finance Act 1994. Referring the earlier show cause notices which gave such deduction it is also submitted that there is no statutory valuation mechanism on the composite service provided by the builder before, during and after the construction. Therefore, appellant is not liable to pay as demanded. Learned CA relied on Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs Union of India [2016 (43) STR 3 (Del)] in which it was held that construction of complex intended for sale by builder before, during or after construction deemed to be service provided by builder to buyer it was ultra vires as there was no statutory mechanism to ascertain value of services component subject of levy of service tax. Service tax could not be levied on value of undivided share of land acquired by buyer of a dwelling unit or on the value (22) Appeal No. ST/28062/2013 & 30005/2016 of goods which are incorporated in project by the developer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Projectsm Limited vs Medchal - G S T on 26 June, 2025

35. In this regard, Learned Adjudicating Authority observed that the appellant entered into agreement with land owners on 07.09.2010 and entitled to a share of 50% of the super built up area and sold 3 flats of their share receiving consideration. The construction activity of the appellant in respect of residential complex is taxable under the category of Works Contract Service. Learned CA argued that for the Project Srinivasa Krupa, the service tax was demanded on total sale price of unit of construction and sold, the value of sale deed need to be excluded, since the show cause notice was issued under Section 73(1a) of the Finance Act 1994. Referring the earlier show cause notices which gave such deduction it is also submitted that there is no statutory valuation mechanism on the composite service provided by the builder before, during and after the construction. Therefore, appellant is not liable to pay as demanded. Learned CA relied on Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs Union of India [2016 (43) STR 3 (Del)] in which it was held that construction of complex intended for sale by builder before, during or after construction deemed to be service provided by builder to buyer it was ultra vires as there was no statutory mechanism to ascertain value of services component subject of levy of service tax. Service tax could not be levied on value of undivided share of land acquired by buyer of a dwelling unit or on the value (22) Appeal No. ST/28062/2013 & 30005/2016 of goods which are incorporated in project by the developer.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms Earthcon Construction P Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 6 August, 2025

29. The Hon'ble Telengana High Court in the case of Vasudha Bommireddy Vs. AC of Hyderabad reported in 2020 (35) GST 52 (Telangana) has held that the ratio of law laid down in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (Supra) is applicable even for the period after 01-07-2012. We are of the view that when two High Courts have held that levy on construction of complex service itself would fail, when there is no mechanism to compute the liability, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked even for demand of service tax Rs.11,55,606/-. Therefore, even the said demand is set aside on the ground of limitation. Demands on issue No.2 and 4 are related to demand of service tax on preferential location charges and service tax payable on reverse charge basis. We have already held that the demand is not maintainable on merits. For the reasons mentioned in preceding paragraphs, we also hold that extended period of limitation is not invokeable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Central ... on 9 January, 2024

2.25 Accordingly, it is the submission of the Appellant that merely because payments are being made in the form of royalty for securing a license, ipso facto cannot be determinative of the same being a quid pro quo for the provision of service, unless the Respondent states and establish that these payments are compensatory in nature. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent has not been able to discharge its burden to establish that these payments are compensatory in nature. At best royalty can be considered as a regulatory fee, to regulate the business of mining of natural resources. Accordingly, the contention of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority that royalty is a consideration for a service being provided by the State Government cannot be sustained. 2.26 Further, assuming without admitting that there is a service element in addition to the regulatory function being performed by the Government, it is submitted that there is no machinery provision prescribed in the Finance Act which provides a mechanism for bifurcating the components towards regulatory fee, and fee which is compensatory in nature, so as to arrive at the assessable value on which service tax ought to be levied. It is trite law that in absence of a machinery for valuation of tax, no service tax can be imposed. [Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Union of India 2016 (43) STR 3 (Del.) para 48, 53 and 55]. As Service Tax Appeal No.41666 of 2018 16 such therefore, no service tax can be levied on the royalty payments made by the Appellant to the State Government.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next