Service Tax Judgements

By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutionalvalidity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeksto levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the decision in the MPortal India case, held that the matter is squarely covered in aforesaid decision and therefore, the Appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on the invoices received prior to Service tax

Vide Order-in-Original dated May 31, 2013, Service tax demand of Rs. 30,59,07,287/- for the period April, 2010 to March, 2011 was confirmed along with interest, Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 49,25,935/- was disallowed and ordered to be recovered as

The Hon’ble Tribunal directed the lower authorities, especially the Deputy Director, DGCEI, Goa to defreeze the account forthwith by issuing appropriate instructions to the Appellant's bankers.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after analysing Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules held that: - In the light of Rule 7 of the Credit Rules which provides the manner of distribution of Cenvat credit by ISD, the basic requisite condition for the distr

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the decision in the Blue Star case and in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. CCE Chandigarh [2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL], held that the Appellant has provided the service of procuring purchase orders for their f

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that there was no reason for the Department not to effect refund. The question as to unjust enrichment is before the Tribunal and all arguments in that regard would be considered by the Tribunal. In the absenc

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: - Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner wa

It can be construed that the consideration received for providing services in relation to the Chit fund business, being merely a transaction in money, would not be exigible to Service tax either prior or post Negative List regime.

It was found that there were substantial grounds for taking lenient view as it indicates that Appellate could not have any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service tax and even Adjudicating Authority waived the penalty under Section 76 by taki