Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.53 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
Section 5 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 76 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Architects Act, 1972
The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2019
In the above decision, the Tribunal had referred to the decision of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs State
of Karnataka- 2004(136) STC 519 (Kara). The Hon'ble High Court held that
the transaction was a deemed sale and is subject to levy of sales tax. Against
this decision, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Hon'ble
Apex Court as Civil Appeal No.3383 of 2004. It is noticed that the same was
disposed vide decision dt.04.12.2019 wherein the decision of the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka was upheld. Merely because there is a right given to
the owner / lessor to withdraw the vessel in case they cause breach of the
condition to do repairs of the vessel, cannot be a ground to infer that there is
no transfer of effective control of the vessel. Even though discussions in
these decisions pertain to the period prior to 1.7.2012, the facts being
identical the legal principles for understanding whether a transaction is
transfer of right to use goods are the same. This is evident from the TRU
Circular dt. 16.3.2012 and the Service Tax Education Guide dated 20.6.2012
issued by CBEC. The Board has relied on the decision rendered by Apex
Court in BSNL ltd. Vs UOI 2006 (20 STR 16 (SC). The meaning and scope of
the phrase 'transfer of right to use goods' is clarified as a transaction which
involves transfer of possession and effective control over such goods. A
fleeting look on the definition of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" under
Section 65 (105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act,1994 as it stood then clarifies
why these decisions can also be made applicable for the period after
1.7.2012. The definition of "Supply of Tangible Goods Service" is as under :
Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs Cce, Delhi on 21 March, 2001
26. The Ld. Consultant has also advanced arguments on the ground of
limitation. Show cause notice is dated 07.12.2017 and issued for the period
November 2015 to January 2016. Undisputedly, the demand has been raised
on reverse charge basis and the appellant would be eligible for credit, if they
paid the service tax. Thus it is a revenue-neutral situation. The Larger Bench
of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. Vs CCE New Delhi (supra) has
held that extended period cannot be invoked when the situation is of
revenue-neutral one. Further the issue is also interpretational one.
Moreover, the department has not been able to establish any positive act on
the part of the appellant that they have suppressed facts with intention to
evade payment of service tax. Taking note of these facts, we are of the
considered opinion that the demand raised for the extended period cannot
sustain. Appellant succeeds on the issue of limitation also. Impugned order
is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law."