CEO 2016 SC 1 LB [Date of Order: 2016-02-19] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2015 SC 6 [Date of Order: 2015-09-03] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2015 SC 423 [Date of Order: 2015-08-20] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2015 SC 8 [Date of Order: 2015-04-15] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2015 SC 4 [Date of Order: 2015-01-30] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2015 SC 543 [Date of Order: 2015-01-07] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2015 SC 559 [Date of Order: 2015-01-06] |
|
Free Preview
Hide 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
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2014 SC 38 [Date of Order: 2014-05-05] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2013 SC 1686 [Date of Order: 2013-09-26] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2013 SC 51 [Date of Order: 2013-08-26] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2013 SC 49 [Date of Order: 2013-08-08] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
STO 2013 SC 1708 [Date of Order: 2013-04-16] |
|
Free Preview
Hide 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
Hide Preview
|
CIO 2013 SC 72 [Date of Order: 2013-01-09] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2012 SC 118 [Date of Order: 2012-11-27] |
|
Free Preview
Hide 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
Hide 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
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2012 Bom 83 [Date of Order: 2012-06-25] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|
CEO 2012 SC 68 [Date of Order: 2012-04-19] |
|
Free Preview
Hide Preview
|