-
Standing committee calls MCA officials to discuss Companies Bill (Click for detail)
-
ST : Clarification on "Completion of Service" where Service Providers are Unable to Issue Invoices within 14 days of Completion of Service (Click for detail)
-
ST : Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Registration - Procedure and Documents Required in Respect of Centralised Registrations (Click for detail)
-
ST : Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Civil Appeal on "Renting/Leasing of immovable property" (Click for detail)
II. Useful Updates:
1. Business Aviation Association For India v.Union of India, SANJIV KHANNA, J. W.P. (C) NO. 3292 of 2010, Judgement Date: 12.07.2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Substantial Question of Law:
(1). As per Assessee/Petitioner/Appellant, aircraft operators are only taking passengers and when passengers board a chartered flight, service tax has to be levied under clause(zzzo) (Transport of passengers by air on international journey services ) and clause (zzzzj)( Supply of tangible goods services ) has no application.
(2). However, as per Department/Respondent as per clarification vide circular no Dy. No. 20/Comm (ST)/2009 dated 9th February,2009, services provided by petitioner falls under clause (zzzzj).
Held:
(11). Assessee/ Petitioner would submit that his activities come within the scope of transport as he only transports passengers from one place to other. Last part of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the circular would indicate that each case has to be adjudicated on its own facts.
(12). We have been apprised at the Bar that there has been no adjudication and decision so far. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to think that adjudication should take place first and till the adjudication is made, no coercive steps shall be taken against the members of the petitioner-association.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate Ludhiana Vs. Mayfair Resorts, APPEAL NO. ST/1 of 2011, Judgement date: 01.03.2011 (In Favour of Assessee), HC OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Brief Fact of the Case:
(1). The assesse /respondent is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category 'Mandap Keeper'.
(2). During audit for the period of 2004-05, it was noticed by the Department/Appellant that the assessee surrendered Rs. 35 lakhs to the Income-tax Department.
(3). According to the department, since only business of the assessee was providing service of 'Mandap Keeper', the amount represented proceeds of services provided by the assessee.
(4). Accordingly, amount was subject to service tax vide order-in-original dated 28-1-2009.
(5). On appeal, the said order was set aside by Tribunal.
Held:
(4). Apart from the fact that it was for the department to show the evasion of service tax and that the money found with the assessee represented proceeds of services provided by it, the Commissioner and the Tribunal have followed an earlier order of the Tribunal. On being asked, learned counsel for the revenue stated that he has no knowledge about the status of the order. When an appeal is filed by the department, the least expected from the counsel for the department is to know the status of the order followed in the impugned order. In absence thereof, the representation by the department can hardly be responsible representation. We hope that the department and its counsel will take appropriate measures in this regard.
(5). No substantial question of law having arisen, the appeal cannot be entertained.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now