Service Tax Judgements

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sanjiv Madhusudan Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Central and Service Tax and ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 646 of 2021 dated January 12, 2021] has stayed a demand notice issued, seeking to levy service tax upon an Ad

The Hon'ble CESTAT Ahmedabad, in Pujan Builders Engineers & Contractors v. CCE and ST Vadodara-II [Service Tax Appeal No. 10516 of 2020, decided on February 11, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund claim

The Hon’ble CESTAT Bangalore, in M/S. Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 20374 of 2020, decided on February 18, 2021] held that no service tax under reverse charge mechanism is payable on the licens

The Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi in M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 50567 of 2019, decided on December 22, 2020]set aside the order holding that the amount received towards pen

The Hon'ble CESTAT Bangalore, in M/s Target Corporation India Pvt Ltd v. C.C.E., Bangalore [Service Tax Appeal No. 20459 of 2016 decided on January 19, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Commissioner for demand of differential Service tax amount

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a communication dated 25.11.2020/01.12.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), by which the bank account of the petitioner in the respondent no.3-Bank (“the Bank”) has been attached by

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the Order-in-Original No.38/Commr/BOL/13 dated December 19, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bolpur, whereby the Commissioner was pleased to drop the proceedings initiated

Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in providing network management and other services to their clients. They also avail the benefit of CENVAT Credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 20

The Appellant, an owner of a cinema hall called ‘Golcha Cinema’ and engaged in the business of exhibiting films in this theatre, has assailed the order dated January 25, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi1 that confirms t

The issue involved in the matter is that whether the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 is applicable to the facts of this case or not?