1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Franchise agreement: Condition satisfied, predeposit required. Appeal conditions and compliance reporting ordered.</h1> The tribunal found that the applicants satisfied Condition No. 4 of the franchise agreement but did not warrant a total waiver of the predeposit amount. ... - Issues:1. Application for waiver of predeposit of service tax2. Interpretation of the definition of 'franchise service'3. Conditions for satisfying the definition of 'franchise service'4. Direction for predeposit of service tax amount5. Compliance reporting dateAnalysis:1. The judgment deals with the application for waiver of predeposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 10,78,364/- along with interest and penalty. The service tax in question was confirmed on franchise services provided by the applicants during a specific period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The main contention raised by the applicants was regarding the interpretation of the definition of 'franchise service' during the relevant period. They argued that they did not satisfy Condition No. 4 of the definition, which states that the franchisee should not engage in selling or providing similar goods or services identified with any other person. The applicants claimed that since they were selling marrybrown fried chicken, which is different from Coke sold by them, they should not be considered to violate Condition No. 4.3. The tribunal noted that the franchise agreement was indeed for selling marrybrown fried chicken, which is distinct from Coke. Therefore, the tribunal found that the applicants prima facie satisfied Condition No. 4 of the franchise agreement. However, the tribunal did not find a strong case for a total waiver of the predeposit amount. As a result, the tribunal directed the appellants to predeposit Rs. 5,00,000/- within eight weeks, and upon such deposit, the predeposit of the remaining tax, interest, and penalty would be dispensed with, with recovery stayed until the final disposal of the appeal.4. The judgment also included a specific direction for compliance reporting on 5-3-2009. It emphasized that failure to comply with the predeposit directive would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court by the presiding judges, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri P. Karthikeyan.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the tribunal and the decision rendered in relation to the application for waiver of predeposit of service tax.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
