Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Courts of Bombay and Delhi had rendered two opposing verdicts on the issue. One view favoured the Revenue while the other one was in favour of the Mobile Service Providers.
The services were not received by the appellant regarding which invoices have been issued to the appellant’s other two addresses, other than the address for which service tax registration has been taken, is contrary to the contention stated by Revenue in the show cause notice. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.
“It is a well settled principle in the law that the taxing statute needs to be construed strictly according to the words phrases used in the statute; there can be no other interpretation when literal interpretation is unambiguous.”
As the service tax needs to be computed in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and as the assessee has not opted for the composition scheme, the matter is remitted back to the CESTAT for re-computation of the demands.
The High Court has also observed that the Service Tax Department cannot invoke the extended period on the sole ground of omission as the same can be invoked only when that there is a deliberate intention to evade payment of tax.
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal holding that Cenvat Credit of Service Tax
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): While dealing with an issue relating to payment of 6% on empty packaging drums
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which raised the question as to
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai: While taking into consideration various of kinds of charges and whether they would qualify
by Yash Vardhan Garu* and Akansha Bohra**
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh: Coram of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and CJ Mathew (Technical Member) addressed whether the
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which involved the issue as to whether
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) partly allowed
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed bearing the issue as
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the order of
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order
Andhra Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and K. Suresh Reddy, JJ., held that, SVLDRS Discharge certificate cannot be withheld
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical member) allowed an appeal
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) partially allowed an appeal against the confirmation order of Commissioner