CESTAT | Company providing service to member companies without consideration not liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS)
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
service tax
CESTAT | Benefit of S. 80, Finance Act, 1994 allowed to assessee who paid major portion of tax liability before issue of show cause notice
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member)
Sikkim HC | Court refuses to condone delay where application drafted in haphazard manner and with nary a care to detail or explanation
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench of Vijai Kumar Bist, CJ and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. dismissed a writ petition filed against the
Bom HC | ‘Dominant user’ of construction in question to be seen while considering application of Section 65 (2-b) of Finance Act, 1994
Bombay High Court: S.C. Dharamadhikari and M.S. Karnik, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the order passed by Central Excise and Service Tax
No limitation on action for refund of service tax paid under wrong impression: Delhi HC
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Ravindra Bhat and Anu Malhotra, JJ. allowed an appeal for refund of service
Statutory machinery clearly computing all components of the levy is a precondition to levying of tax
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of S.Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. ruled on whether ‘service
Service Tax demand notice on Saurav Ganguly, quashed
Calcutta High Court: Holding that the show cause notice dated 26th September 2011, demanding service tax from the Petitioner, was barred by
Rule 5-A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 struck down as ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994
Delhi High Court: Disposing of the petition, wherein the challenge was to Rule 5-A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 [as amended
No service tax can be levied on indivisible Works Contracts prior to June 1, 2007
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.K. Sikri and R.F. Nariman JJ. held that Works Contract Service was not a taxable service