Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim that petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company, engaged in the business of development and sale of immovable property, i.e., real estate, have impugned a notice, dated March 6, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Central Excise, to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner-company has been asked to get itself registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Finance Act, 1994'), inasmuch as the petitioner-company has been, according to respondent No. 3, 'providing commercial or industrial construction service/construction of complex service'. The petitioners challenge the very authority of respondent No. 3 to issue the notice, which stands impugned in the present writ petition, the case of the petitioners being, in brief thus: Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of developm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008BusLR469(SC); (2008)216CTR(SC)289; [2008]301ITR309(SC); 2008(8)SCALE223; 2008AIRSCW4096
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') providing for imposition of tax on 'fringe benefits' is in question herein.3. Before embarking upon the said question, however, we may notice the basic fact of the matter.Appellant is incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is engaged in the business of providing Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig (MODR) along with crew on a day rate charter hire basis to drill offshore wells. The MODR operates offshore (upto 200 nautical miles off the coast of India). Allegedly, having regard to the harsh working environment and purported to be in line with global practices typical to such industry, the employees who may be residents of various countries including Australia, USA, UK, France etc. work on the MODR on a 'commuter basis'. They come to India, stay in the Rig for 28 days and go back to their own country being their place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP207; 2009(3)MPHT304; 2009[15]STR3; [2009]22STT105; (2009)22VST170(MP); 2009(5)AIRKarR498
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') as amended by the Finance Act, 2005 was challenged primarily and principally on the ground that there is lack of legislative competence on the part of the concerned Legislature to bring in such a legislation and further, assuming the legislation meets the test of legislative competence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid writ petitions were listed along with W. A. No. 1524 of 2007.2. In the course of hearing of the writ appeal, on behalf of the appellant therein, it was contended that the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Vindhyachal Distellaries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [2007] 7 VST 197 (MP) has not appropriately considered the decision rendered in Som Distilleries and Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. [1997] 1 ILJ 319 and various other aspects which deserve consideration. The Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Heard ld. SDR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that as per provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act the Assistant Commissioner or as the case may be the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is the proper officer to issue the notice for recovery of tax.In the present case show-cause notice was issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the provisions of Section 73 of Finance Act were further amended by Finance Act 2005 with effect from 13.5.05 whereby the Central Excise Officer was empowered to issue a show-cause notice in respect of Service Tax which has not been levied or short paid or which has been short levied or short paid. The contention is that the notice has been issued by the Supdt. of Central Excise who is Central Excise officer, therefore, the demand cannot be set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC248
1. This batch of appeals involves the common question of law relating to maintainability for which all such appeals are heard analogous on such issue. Appeal No. EDM-394/03 was earlier heard on 20.3.07. Appeal No. CDM-61/03 was earlier heard on 27.3.07. These cases were listed again today along with other similar appeals to hear on the preliminiary question as to whether prior to the amendment made in 2005 to Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and similar provision under the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner himself can file appeals against the Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) or not.2. Today when the matter was heard, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Senior Advocate was not present. However, he had expressed his views on the earlier date of hearing on 27.3.07. Shri C.S. Lodha, learned Advocate who was present in the court today, also gave his views on the issue at the request of the Bench, as the matter was of importance, all the advocates and consultants present during the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)11STJ139CESTAT(Chennai)
1. This application has been filed by M/s. G.B. Engineering Enterprises (P) Limited (GBE) long with their appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order passed by the Joint Commissioner confirming a demand of service tax of Rs. 5,01,770/-, interest due thereon, imposing a penalty equal to the service tax demanded and a penalty at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day from the date the arrears of tax were due to be paid till the date of payment subject to a maximum of the service tax demanded.2. The facts of the case are that GBE manufactures boilers and boiler components. They also provide, inter alia, Consulting Engineer Service.In terms of contracts the assessee had entered into with M/s. Ispat Energy Limited (IEL) GBE, provided materials and service to IEL. On verification of the assessee's records it was found that the assessee had received a total amount o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Department against the impugned order of the lower appellate authority. In the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, it is argued that the lower appellate authority having confirmed the order of demand should have also imposed penalty under Rule 57-1(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri P.K. Das, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue supports the Departmental's appeals and states that the lower appellate authority is not justified in setting aside the penalty.3. Shri Kartik Kurmy, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the order passed by the lower appellate authority and challenges the appeals filed by the Revenue on the following grounds: (i) The authorization to file the present appeals has been signed by only one Commissioner and not by a Committee of Two Commissioners as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the said authorization is not valid, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(4)SC50; 2007(3)SCALE584; (2007)3SCC668; 2007[7]STR110; [2007]7STT136
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant herein is engaged, inter alia, in the printing of questions papers for examination boards, competitive examination boards, recruitment boards and various universities and boards situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It carries on a highly specialized and secretive work. The activities of the appellant admittedly amounts to a works contract in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.3. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act) was enacted to formulate principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or outside a State or in the course of imports into or export from India, to provide for the levy, collection and distribution of taxes on sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The said Act did not contain any provision to levy tax on works contract, despite insertion of Clause 29A in Article 366 of the Constitution of India. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : LC(2007)(3)269
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-m, Chennai in ITA Nos. 173 and 174/2006-07 dt. 4th Oct., 2006. The assessments were framed by the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai for the asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 vide his both orders dt. 27th March, 2006 under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Since the issue is found to be common, both the appeals were elaborately heard together and for the sake of convenience and brevity, a consolidated order is passed.2. The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) or not in the given facts and circumstances.3. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the assessee is not pressing the first ground of the appeal regarding issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and hence, he is withdrawing this ground. The learned Depar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2006[4]STR428
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the explanation to Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short 'the 1994 Act') added vide Finance Act, 2005. According to the said explanation, where any service provided or to be provided by a person, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided, or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India and such service is received or to be received by a person who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or, as the case may be, usual place of residence, in India, such service shall be deemed to be taxable service for the purposes of this clause. Vide notification issued under Section 68 of the 1994 Act, the person receiving services in India was made liable to service tax in respect of service rendered by person not having any office or establishment in India. Contention raised in writ petition is that...
Tag this Judgment!