Login | Register Now | Contact Us   
 

CGST Act IGST Act UTGST Act GST (Compensation to the States) Act Addendum to the GST Rate Schedule - 03.06.2017 101st Constitution Amendment Act, 2016 Addendum to the GST Rate Schedule - 18.05.2017 GST Compensation Cess Rates Decided in the GST Council Meeting held on 18.05.2017 Chapter Wise Rate wise GST Schedule - 03.06.2017 Chapter wise GST Rate Schedule for Goods Decided in the GST Council Meeting held on 18.05.2017 Revised Threshold for Composition Scheme - 11.06.2017 IGST Exemptions Approved by the GST Council - 11.06.2017 GST Rates Approved by the GST Council - 11.06.2017 Service Tax Exemptions in GST IGST Exemption, Concession List - 03.06.2017 Composition - Rules Valuation Rules ITC - Rules Invoice, Debit & Credit Notes - Rules Payment - Rules Refund - Rules Registration - Rules Return- Rules Transition Rules Proposed CTD Document Accounts and Record Rules GST rate Schedule for Services List of Services under Reverse Charge Classification Scheme for Services Under GST Decisions Taken by the GST Council in the 16th Meeting - 11.06.2017
Case Laws
CEO 2016 SC 1 LB
[Date of Order: 2016-02-19]
Free Preview
CEO 2015 SC 6
[Date of Order: 2015-09-03]
Free Preview
STO 2015 SC 423
[Date of Order: 2015-08-20]
Free Preview
CEO 2015 SC 8
[Date of Order: 2015-04-15]
Free Preview
CEO 2015 SC 4
[Date of Order: 2015-01-30]
Free Preview
STO 2015 SC 543
[Date of Order: 2015-01-07]
Free Preview
STO 2015 SC 559
[Date of Order: 2015-01-06]
Free Preview
STO 2014 SC 909
[Date of Order: 2014-05-06]

Question raised for consideration in the said cases is whether manufacture, supply and installation of lifts is to be treated as “sale” or “works contract”: If there are two contracts, namely, purchase of the components of the lift from a dealer, it would be a contract for sale and similarly, if separate contract is entered into for installation, that would be a contract for labour and service. But, a pregnant one, once there is a composite contract for supply and installation, it has to be treated as a works contract, for it is not a sale of goods/chattel simpliciter. It is not chattel sold as chattel or, for that matter, a chattel being attached to another chattel: It would not be appropriate to term it as a contract for sale on the bedrock that the components are brought to the site, i.e., building, and prepared for delivery: Conclusion reached in Kone Elevators’ case by this Court earlier, is based on the bedrock of incidental service for delivery: It would not be legally correct to make such a distinction in respect of lift, for the contract itself profoundly speaks of obligation to supply goods and materials as well as installation of the lift which obviously conveys performance of labour and service. Hence, the fundamental characteristics of works contract are satisfied: Decision rendered in Kone Elevators (supra) does not correctly lay down the law and it is, accordingly, overruled.

Free Preview
CEO 2014 SC 38
[Date of Order: 2014-05-05]
Free Preview
STO 2013 SC 1686
[Date of Order: 2013-09-26]
Free Preview
CEO 2013 SC 51
[Date of Order: 2013-08-26]
Free Preview
CEO 2013 SC 49
[Date of Order: 2013-08-08]
Free Preview
STO 2013 SC 1708
[Date of Order: 2013-04-16]
Free Preview
CIO 2013 SC 1
[Date of Order: 2013-01-22]

Penalty: Bonafide conduct: It is a cardinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form of mala fide lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it.

Free Preview
CIO 2013 SC 72
[Date of Order: 2013-01-09]
Free Preview
CEO 2012 SC 118
[Date of Order: 2012-11-27]
Free Preview
STO 2012 SC 1158
[Date of Order: 2012-11-09]

Service Tax: Validity of the Circular No. 98/1/2008-S.T., dated 4-1-2008: Composite construction contracts: Scope: The Impugned Circular has only explained the contents of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules so as to provide guidelines to the Revenue Officers. Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules is very clear that the assessee who wants to avail of the benefit under Rule 3 must opt to pay service tax in respect of a works contract before payment of service tax in respect of the works contract and the option so exercised is to be applied to the entire works contract and the assessee is not permitted to change the option till the said works contract is completed. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the appellant-assessee had already paid service tax on the basis of classification of works contract which was in force prior to 1st July, 2007. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant had exercised a particular option with regard to the mode of payment of tax after 1st July, 2007 with regard to reclassified works contract. Not availing of CENVAT credit is absolutely irrelevant in the instant case. Impugned Circular is not discriminatory in nature. Those who had paid tax as per the provisions and classification existing prior to 1st June, 2007 and those who opted for payment of tax under the provisions of Rule 3 of the 2007 Rules and paid tax before exercising the option belong to different classes and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Impugned Circular or the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules are discriminatory. The appellant has not challenged the validity of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules. Impugned Circular is not contrary to the Act or the statutory rules. Even if the Impugned Circular is set aside, the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules would remain and that would not benefit the appellant.(Para 27-30). 

Free Preview
STO 2012 SC 779
[Date of Order: 2012-10-15]

Stay of Conviction: Respondent applied for stay of conviction order till his appeal is decided by High Court, which was allowed by High Court: Petitioner’s appeal against High Court order staying the conviction order allowed.

Free Preview
CEO 2012 Bom 83
[Date of Order: 2012-06-25]
Free Preview
CEO 2012 SC 68
[Date of Order: 2012-04-19]
Free Preview
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >
(DISCLAIMER: Despite all efforts have been made to reproduce the orders and other related contents correctly, there may still be chances for such errors and/ or omissions to have crept in inadvertently. The access and circulation is subject to the condition that Easy Service Tax Online Dot Com Private Limited is not responsible / liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake / error / omissions.)
 
 

www.centralexciseonline.com

 


www.taxolegal.com


Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


www.customsindiaonline.com
Home | Mission | Contact Us | Acknowledgements © 2009 Copyrights, All Rights Reserved. 
Disclaimer Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order and other contents correctly, the access and circulation is subject to the condition that EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions. The replica watches Site is constantly updated and any or all of the contents are liable to be modified, altered, deleted or replaced. EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone whether directly or indirectly  due to any modification , alteration, addition, deletion or replacement of any of the contents.

Copyright: Reproduction of news articles, photos, or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of  EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is prohibited.Do not copy contents of this site. All pages are protected by COPYSCAPE. Plagiarism will be detected by COPYSCAPE.