Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 3 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Mines Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
State Wakf Board, Madras vs Abdul Azeez Sahib And Ors. on 30 March, 1966
"48. The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to"), is a very broad
expression which pre-supposes another subject matter. These are words of
comprehensiveness which might both have a direct significance as well as an
indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul
Aziz (A.I.R. 1968 Madras 79, 81 paragraphs 8 and 10,following and
approving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul (66 C.W.N.
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
767), Shyam Lal v. M. Shayamlal (A.I.R. 1933 All. 649) and 76 Corpus Juris
Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not
form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then
these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the
above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus
Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term "relate"'
is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has
been clearly mentioned that "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or
synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". The expression
"pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction."
Commnr.,Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd on 20 August, 2015
4.8 Having found and decided that the services involved in the said contract
were required to be classified under mining services defined in clause (zzzy)
of sub-section (105) of section 65 of the Act, now we shall examine another
argument placed by the appellant that the services which are covered under
clause (zzzy) shall not be liable to tax prior to its enactment i.e. 01.06.2007.
We find that the clause (zzzy) of sub-section (105) of section 65 of the Act
was brought to taxability w.e.f. 01.06.2007. We also find that no changes
were made in the other categories of taxable services as existed prior to
01.06.2007 while the new category was enacted by the parliament. Thus it is
a necessary corollary to appreciate that what has been newly enacted by the
parliament w.e.f. 01.06.2007 was not covered under any categories prior to
such date. This principle has been categorically laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in respect of works contract by way of decision in case of
Commissioner v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd - 2015 (8) TMI 749 which is followed in
case of Total Environment Building Systems Pvt Ltd v. DCCT - 2022 (8) TMI
168 by Hon'ble Apex Court and in case of N J Devani Builders P Ltd v. UOI -
2020 (11) TMI 798 by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Thus, we find no difficulty
in following the same golden principle settled by the courts that the services
are not liable to service tax prior to the date of enactment of particular entry
to which they classify. Since, the services involved in the contract are found
to be classifiable under clause (zzzy) of sub-section (105) of section 65, they
shall not be liable to tax prior to date of its enactment i.e. 01.06.2007.