Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
M/S Glyph International Ltd. vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2014
23. On the issue of demand of service tax on the consideration received
from BSNL, learned Advocate has argued mainly that they were only
engaged in printing bill at the premises of BSNL in terms of agreement
between BSNL and relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench at
Chandigarh in the case of Xerox India Ltd (supra), wherein the Tribunal
examined the leviability of service tax under the category of BSS or BAS or
under WCS. In the present facts of the case, it is not alleged that they were
engaged in either maintenance or repair service or WCS and the only ground
was that they have provided BAS to BSNL on which service tax has not been
discharged. Learned Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that it is not
a simple case of merely printing the bills rather it is a case of detailed
activities carried out by them, as explained in the OIO. The Adjudicating
Authority has examined the agreement dt.18.04.2007 and, inter alia,
observed that the agreement required the appellant to provide software for
designing the various bill formats, which was required to be developed by
the bidder free of cost, apart from installing and maintaining the printing
system in BSNL Kolkapur's TRA unit premises. The Adjudicating Authority's
views on this issue are stated at Para 27.7 of the OIO dt.28.08.2012, cited
below for ease of reference:-
Indian National Shipowners Assn. vs Union Of India . on 27 January, 2016
19. Therefore, the short issue is whether the plain reading of the
provisions under section 66A read with Rule 3(1)(iii) of TSPOI Rules, 2006,
requires that not only services should be received in India but should also be
consumed in India for it to become covered by the deeming provision for the
purpose of charging service tax on RCM or otherwise. There is no dispute
about legality of section 66A for the period post its introduction, as has been
held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Indian National Shipowners
Association Vs UOI (supra) as well as by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the
case of Glyph International Ltd Vs UOI (supra). The issue before the Hon'ble
High Courts was whether recipient of service in India is liable to service tax
from abroad before 18.04.2006 or only after the said date after enactment
of section 66A. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that service tax can be
charged only after the enactment of section 66A, which was upheld by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas, charging of service tax on similar service
for the period prior to the enactment of section 66A was set aside.
Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries ... vs Director Of Income Tax, Mumbai on 4 January, 2007
In fact, the Hon'ble High Court
also dealt with the argument about double taxation and distinguished the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishikawajma-Harima
Heavy Industries Ltd vs. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai [(2007) 3 SCC
481].
All India Federation Of Tax ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2007
Further, he has also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the
case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs UOI [2007 (7) STR 625
(SC)] to come to the conclusion that section 66A does not suffer from the
vice of unconstitutionality, either on the ground of lack of legislative
competence, or on the ground of extra territorial operation of laws. Thus,
the basic defence taken by the appellant that no service tax can be levied on
the services rendered and consumed abroad will not hold good in view of the
deeming provisions created by constitution under section 66A of the Finance
Act, 1994.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Temenos India Pvt Ltd vs Cst Ch - Iii on 6 February, 2020
In the case of M/s Cords Cable
Industries Ltd Vs CCGST & ST, Rajasthan, vide Final Order No. 59868/2024
dt.11.12.2024, the Delhi Tribunal, relying on the judgment in the case of
The Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs CST, Mumbai-II [2018-TIOL-
2641-CESTAT-Mum], held that the plea of revenue neutrality cannot be
accepted as it would make the entire scheme of RCM futile. We, therefore,
find that the ground of revenue neutrality taken by the appellant is not
sustainable in view of catena of judgments cited by the Revenue and
respectfully following the same, we do not consider this ground as tenable
for dropping the demand when it is otherwise chargeable to service tax in
terms of section 66A on merit.