LAGHU UDYOG BHARATI AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
1999 INSC 29327 July 1999Case Allowed
The petitioners, who use the services of goods transport operators and clearing‑and‑forwarding agents, challenged the validity of Service Tax Rules 2(d)(xii) and 2(d)(xvii) (as amended 1997) which made the customers or clients the “person responsible for collecting service tax”. They contended that the rules conflicted…
C.C., C.E. & S.T. – BANGALORE (ADJUDICATION) ETC.versusM/S NORTHERN OPERATING SYSTEMS PVT LTD.
2022 INSC 59819 May 2022Case Partly allowed
The Supreme Court examined whether Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee) was liable to pay service tax on payments made to its overseas group companies for seconded employees. The Court held that the overseas entities supplied manpower services, making the assessee the service recipient liable for service…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-1versusM/S GUJARAT CARBON & INDUSTRIES LTD.
2008 INSC 94618 August 2008Dismissed
The respondents, Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd., had hired transport operators before 2003 and were served with a notice demanding service tax on the gross transport charges. The Commissioner of Central Excise relied on sections 70, 73, 76, 77 and 81 of the Finance Act, 1994 and on a retrospective amendment under sec…
ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE
2022 INSC 20118 February 2022Dismissed
The appellant, Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., a manpower recruitment agency, entered into agreements with Sigma Electric Manufacturing to supply personnel for various manufacturing activities. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the appellant had failed to assess and pay ser…
GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 15617 March 2005Dismissed
The petitioners, customers of goods‑transport operators and clearing‑and‑forwarding agents, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and Section 158 of the Finance Act 2003 which retrospectively validated service‑tax levies that had been struck down in *Laghu Udyog Bharati*…
TAMIL NADU KALYANA MANDAPAM ASSN.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2004 INSC 26915 April 2004Dismissed
The Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association, representing mandap‑keepers who let out halls and provide catering, challenged the levy of service tax on their services under Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 2(1)(d)(ix) of the Service Tax Rules, arguing that the tax was in substance a tax on land (a St…
M/S STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD -III
2025 INSC 84114 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics, a joint‑venture stem‑cell bank, was assessed service tax for its enrolment, collection, processing and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells for the period 1 July 2012 to 16 February 2014. The appellant claimed exemption as a "Healthcare Service" under Notification No.25/2012‑ST an…
MIS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusCOMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2007 INSC 127712 December 2007Dismissed
The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) entered into a contract with the foreign consultancy SNC Lavalin for engineering services, agreeing to pay the service tax on the foreign company's behalf. KSEB failed to make the payments and argued that, under the Finance Act, 1994, the tax liability rested on the service pro…
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusFUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.
2025 INSC 18110 February 2025Disposed off
The Union of India challenged the liability of several private companies, including Future Gaming Solutions, to pay service tax on the sale of paper and online lottery tickets for the Government of Sikkim. The High Court of Sikkim had set aside service‑tax notices issued under various amendments to the Finance Act, 199…
UNION OF JNDIA & ORS.versusBENGAL SHRACHI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED &ANR.
2017 INSC 10847 November 2017Disposed off
The Union of India (lessee) and Bengal Shrchi Housing Development Limited (lessor) entered into a three‑year lease for commercial premises. Dispute arose over who should pay service tax on the lease. The High Court held the lessee liable, but the Division Bench reversed, holding the lessor liable based on the Service T…