LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label service tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label service tax. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2020

service tax on the charges collected by the respondent for supply of pipes and measuring equipment to its customers under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. - In the Show Cause Notice, the appellant stated that based on an assessment of gas sale agreements and invoices, it found that the “gas connection charges” were collected for “supply of pipes and measurement equipment etc.”. The appellant also noted that the respondent had not issued any deposit receipt for these charges nor had it mentioned that these charges are a refundable amount in the invoices issued.- we are of the view that the supply of the pipelines and the measurement equipment (SKID equipment) by the respondent, was of use to the customers and is taxable under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act 1994.

›
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2020 Commissioner of Service Tax, A...
Saturday, November 10, 2012

service tax - the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 6558/2008, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant and upheld the validity of the Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST, dated 4.1.2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Impugned Circular’) issued by respondent no. 1 herein.=Whether the Impugned Circular is contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules and Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Act. and that by virtue of the Impugned Circular, the appellant and other similarly situated persons would be deprived of the benefit under the Rules. He submitted that under Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules, the appellant is entitled to opt for payment of 4% of the gross amount charged for the works contract but by virtue of the Impugned Circular, the appellant would not get an opportunity to avail of the option provided under Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules. We do not accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Impugned Circular is discriminatory in nature. Those who had paid tax as per the provisions and classification existing prior to Ist 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. 30. The appellant has not challenged the validity of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules and, therefore, we do not go into the said issue. In our opinion, the Impugned Circular is not contrary to the Act or the statutory rules made thereunder and the Impugned Circular only provides guidelines as to how the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the 2007 Rules are to be interpreted. 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. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error while upholding the Impugned Circular and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

›
                                                     REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  ...