1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court upholds service tax demand on Government Department for using transport agency services</h1> The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking to quash an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, requiring a ... - Issues involved: The issue involves quashing an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, requiring a Government Department under the Ministry of Railways to deposit the entire service tax demand as a condition for hearing the appeal.Summary:The petitioner, a Government Department under the Ministry of Railways, filed a petition seeking to quash an order by the Tribunal directing the deposit of the entire service tax demand of Rs. 3,28,838 as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The petitioner argued that as a department under the Ministry of Railways, it should not be liable to deposit the service tax amount. However, the court found no merit in the writ petitions.The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had availed services of a goods transport agency, and the levy was on taxable services provided/received. Therefore, the court held that there was no error in the Tribunal's jurisdiction. No illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. The court clarified that any observations made should not be considered an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. The petitioner was granted an extension of two weeks to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal, with the assurance that the appeals would be heard on merits if the deposit was made within the stipulated time.