Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
6 judgments · newest first · showing 1–6
The appellant (Revenue) challenged the CESTAT’s order that allowed M/s Interarch Building Products to treat its construction services as a works‑contract service, pay service tax on the total contract value and claim CENVAT credit on inputs. The Court examined whether Rule 2A of the Service Tax …
The Commissioner of Service Tax issued show‑cause notices to Citibank alleging that the Rs 2 interchange fee it earned as an issuing bank on credit‑card transactions was taxable service income. Citibank contended that it performed no service, that the fee was interest, and that tax had already been …
The Union of India issued show‑cause notices under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, demanding service tax from Coastal Container Transporters Association and its members, classifying their activities as "cargo handling services". The respondents contended that their services fell under the …
The assessees, who provide various services, received reimbursements for out‑of‑pocket expenses such as travel and hotel costs. They paid service tax only on the fees for services, not on the reimbursable expenses, whereas Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 required …
The Supreme Court examined whether service tax could be levied on indivisible works contracts entered into after the Finance Act, 1994 but before the 2007 amendment that expressly made such contracts taxable. It held that the 1994 Act neither charged nor provided machinery to assess service tax on …
M/s Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. entered into composite construction contracts and paid service tax before 1 June 2007 under the then‑applicable clauses (zzd), (zzq) and (zzzh) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. After the amendment introducing clause (zzzza) and the Works Contracts …
