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 Decisions Taken by the GST Council in the 16th Meeting - 11.06.2017 List of Services under Reverse Charge Classification Scheme for Services Under GST
Service Tax Registration
Service Tax Registration

Case Laws Related

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 952
  • Cenvat Credit: Invoices issued prior to appellants obtained registration: credit cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee was not registered during the relevant time.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 753
  • Refund: Prior to registration: refund admissible.

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 609
  • Service Tax: Interest liability under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994: Scope: As per Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, every person, liable to pay tax who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the prescribed period, shall pay simple interest at a rate not less than 10% and not in excess of 36% p.a. The assessee paid service tax by way of debit in CENVAT credit amount and later on made good the error by making payment in cash. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that this is not a case of failure to make payment but only an adoption of an incorrect method for payment, and therefore, the provisions of Section 75 are not attracted against the assessees.(Para 2).

    Revenue appeal rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1614
  • Service Tax: Port Service: Limitation: The appellants got registered under 'port service' with effect from 18.8.2003. We cannot hold that the department was not aware of the nature of activity undertaken by the appellants when it was issued a registration certificate in August 2002. Therefore, as rightly argued by the appellants, the show cause notice basic to the proceedings issued in July 2006 is barred by limitation. We also find that the lower authorities have not given a reliable finding of fraud, suppression of facts, willful misstatement or contravention of any provisions of the Act with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellants to justify invocation of larger period. (para 4)

    Service Tax- Port Services: In Konkan Marine Agencies (supra) case, the Tribunal held that stevedoring works carried out on the basis of a licence issued by a port cannot be interpreted as rendering of any service on behalf of the port and the licence issued is only a permission to undertake such services within the port premises. The decision of the Tribunal in Konkan Marine Agencies case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore Vs. Konkan Marine Agencies [2009 (13) S.T.R. 7 (Kar.)]. As the demand of service tax is not sustainable, the demand for interest and penalties imposed are also not sustainable. (para 4)

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1131
  • Service Tax: Port Services: Registration under the category of "Cargo Handling Services" and "Custom House Agent" services - Issue in these cases is squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of Konkan Marine Agencies Vs. CCE, Mangalore STO 2007 CESTAT 168 Waiver of pre -deposit of the entire dues demanded in the impugned orders.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 514
  • Input Service Distributor: The only ground on the basis of which the credit has been denied is that the registration number was not available and this has been explained subsequently.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 330
  • Business Auxiliary Service: Credit denied since the duty paying documents did not contain the address mentioned in the registration certificate: The duty paying documents were in the name of the appellant, only objection of revenue is that the address mentioned in the Invoices is not registered with the Revenue Authorities. We find the registration certificate was subsequently amended included the address mentioned in the invoices with retrospective effect. Order set aside and appeal allowed. In respect of credit denied on other grounds, the impugned order is upheld. Appeals are disposed off, as indicated above. (para 6)

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 622
  • Service Tax: Security Agency Service -  Waiver of Penalty Under Section 80: Section 80 lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 76, 77 or 78, penalty shall not be imposable for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. In the facts and circumstances, the belief of the appellant that it was liable to pay Service Tax only on receipt of the amount from the recipient which is M/s. B.S.N.L., could be a bona fide belief. It may be recalled that the appellant had filed Writ Petition seeking direction from the Allahabad High Court to pay the dues and pursuant to the orders of the High Court, the dues were paid by B.S.N.L. directly to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise  (Para 4,11)

    Service Tax: Security Agency Service: Penalty under Section 77: Imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 is different from the one under Section 76. In the instant case, penalty under Section 77 has been imposed on the appellant for its failure to obtain registration. It is a common ground that no penalty is separately provided for failure to obtain registration and in the absence of any dispute that the appellant was rendering taxable service, there is no difficulty in holding that the penalty under Section 77 requires no modification. Appellant is further held liable to pay penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act. (para 8,13)

    Service Tax: Security Agency Service: Penalty under Section 78: Non-submission of the return was the result and concomitant of non-registration for which penalty has already been imposed under Section 77 of the Act. The clause “suppression of facts” can be applied where return is filed or some statement or declaration (which the person is required to submit) concealing material facts having bearing on the tax liability of the person. Non-submission of the return per se may not attract penalty under Section 78. (para 9)

    Service Tax: Security Agency Service: Penalty under Section 76: Penalty, no doubt, can be quantified and imposed in that manner in terms of Section 76 of the Act, but it does not mean that penalty must necessarily be worked out at the rate and in the manner provided in Section 76.  It should be kept in mind that under Section 80, where the person/assessee succeeds in proving reasonable cause for failure to pay tax, penalty may be waived altogether.In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each for the periods in question totalling Rs. 1 lac in all would be sufficient to discharge the penal obligations under Section 76 of the Act. (para 10,12)

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 1304
  • Stay: Penalty : Central Registration obtained at Delhi, Banglore authority had no jurisdiction to confirm. The original authority dropped penalty proceedings, in Revision penalty u/s 78 has been imposed. Similar matter earlier stay has been granted. Following the same stay granted in this case also.

  • STO 2007 CESTAT 258
  • Port Service: Ship breaking activities and ship manufacturing activities may also be done in the port area, for which purposes facility may be provided by the port, but that will not make the same as "port services".

    Maintenance or Repair Service: The appellant had taken registration for the said services and had started paying duty thereafter. Revenue has not raised any objection to the said registration of the appellant and payment of duty by them under the category of maintenance and repair services. If the services being rendered by them were already covered by the above services, there was no justification on the part of Revenue to accept their registration under the category of maintenance and repair of services. The said category having been created w.e.f. 1-7-03, the said activity for the past period cannot be held to be covered under the category of port services.

    Limitation: The period involved is 16-7-01 to 30-9-03, whereas the SCN has been issued on 23-1-04. There are no positive allegation of suppression or any mis-statement on the part of appellant with an intention to evade the duty. The issue involved is bona fide interpretation of provisions of law. Extended period cannot be invoked.

  • STO 2006 CESTAT 69
  • Stay: Management Consultant Service: Mere facts of non-registration by itself will not be a ground to come to a conclusion that there was suppression of facts.Waiver granted.

  • STO 2005 AP 123
  • Banking Services : Suffice to state that the petitioner cannot be held to be a "non-banking financial company" solely on the basis of the certificate of registration issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is only if, on the basis of material on record, it is established that in addition to the Certificate of Registration, the principal business of the petitioner, during the relevant period, was receipt of deposits or lending of money, that it would come within the definition of a "non-banking financial company", rendering it liable for payment of service tax.

  • STO 2004 CESTAT 96
  • Penalty : Under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, the minimum penalty prescribed under the said Section 76 of F.A. 94 is Rs. 100/- only and not Rs. 100/- per day of delay. The adjudicating authorities have discretion not to impose any penalty for delay in paying service tax and for delay in furnishing return in terms of Section 80 of F.A. 94, but they have no such discretion for not imposing penalty for failure to apply for registration.





    Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

    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. Mr Certify 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.