Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 September, 2013 cites

Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2004

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 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 106 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Association Of Voluntary Agencies For ... vs Union Of India on 21 September, 1990

6. As far as the second issue relating to valuation is concerned, we find the issue relating to the valuation in respect of security agency have been discussed in number of judgment of this Tribunal as also various High Courts. It would suffice to quote judgement of the Kerla High Court in the case of Security Agencies Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (28) STR 3 (Ker.), Honble High Court in the said judgment has observed as under;
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Intercontinental Consultants And ... vs U.O.I. & Anr. on 30 November, 2012

[i] Delhi High Court in the W.P. (C) 6370/2008 of intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ANR (2012-TIOL-966-HC-DEL-ST) [ii] Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Sangamitra Services Agency (2013 (7) TMI 862) [iii] Nexcus Computers (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondicherry 2008 (9) S.T.R. 34 (Tri-Chennai)-Final Order No. Stay Order No.111/200 dated 14-9-2007in in Application No. S/PD/106/2007 & S/EH/550/2007 in Appeal No. S/152/2007 [iv] Om Sai Professional Detective & Sec. Ser.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 88 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Advertising Club vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs on 30 April, 2001

11.?The correctness and sustainability of fixation of service tax with reference to Gross income of the Advertising Agencies in the State of Tamil Nadu, without excluding the expenditure part, while extending such benefits to some others was challenged before Madras High Court, on the plea of discrimination and violation of Article 14, besides challenging the constitutional validity of the statute. After considering the various provisions of the Statute, constitutional mandate and judicial precedents, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, as per the decision in Advertising Club v. Central Board of Excise & Customs, 2001 (131) E.L.T. 35 (Mad.) = 2006 (2) S.T.R. 457 (Mad.) held that the challenge was unfounded and that the constitutional validity of a taxing provision was not to be decided on the basis of measure of tax, i.e., the deduction allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Gda Security Private Limited And Anr. vs The Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 22 November, 2001

One of the learned Judges, who rendered the above decision had occasion to consider the scope of the said verdict in a subsequent case as well, while sitting in Division with another learned Judge in GDA Security Private Limited v. Union of India, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 332 (Mad.) = 2006 (2) S.T.R. 542 (Mad.) which was in respect of service tax to be satisfied by the Security Agencies. There also, the legislative competence was under challenge, referring to the fixation of liability based on the Gross income without segregating the expenditure part and also on the ground of discrimination. After an exhaustive analysis of the relevant aspects, the learned Judges observed that the challenge raised was not sustainable, holding that, it was for the State to decide as to which agency was to be taxed and which was not to be taxed. The Legislature had a discretion in levying tax on a particular class and such discretion has always been recognised and approved by the Apex Court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 Next