Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
Finance Act, 2013
Cce, Meerut-Ii vs M/S. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd on 3 March, 2008
13. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the
issue of levy of service tax on GTO service, on the receiver of service
under reverse charge mechanism was held ultra virus by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the case of L. H. Sugar (supra) by judgment dated
27.07.2005. It was categorically held that „person‟ required to file
return under Section 71A of the Act was not covered under Section
73, as it stood on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. I
find that it is admitted fact that the appellant have taken service tax
registration and are filing the periodical returns regularly. The
appellant have maintained proper books of accounts in the normal
course of business. The only allegation in the show cause notice is
that the appellant have not discharged the service tax liability on
7
„reverse charge basis‟ on Goods Transport Service, received during
the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. It is further alleged in the
show cause notice that service tax was imposed as transport of goods
of service w.e.f. 16.11.1997 vide Notification No. 41/1997-ST dated
5.11.1997. Further, the Central Government vide Notification No.
42/1997-ST dated 5.11.1997 amended the Service Tax Rules and in
Rule 2(1)(d) clause (xvii) was inserted which read as follows:-
Section 116 in Finance Act, 2020 [Entire Act]
Section 117 in Finance Act, 2020 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Laghu Udyog Bharati And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
27.07.1999 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog
Bharati vs. UOI 1998 (112) ELT 365 (SC) inter alia held that
the provisions of Rule 2(d) of Service Tax Rules, in so far as
it made persons other than goods transport operators
responsible for collecting service tax, is ultra vires the
Finance Act, 1994.