TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds tax on import drilling activities & service tax on mineral exploration; challenge dismissed.</h1> <h3>Cairn Energy India (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Cairn Energy India (P) Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 444 (Mad.) Issues:Challenge to show cause notice proposing tax on import drilling activities and import of taxes; Challenge to Circular No. 80/10/2004/S.T. regarding service tax on survey and exploration of minerals.Analysis:In the present case, M/s. Cairn Energy India (P) Ltd. filed two writ petitions challenging a show cause notice proposing tax on import drilling activities and import of taxes, and Circular No. 80/10/2004/S.T. regarding service tax on survey and exploration of minerals. The petitioner, engaged in oil and gas exploration, argued that the impugned circular exceeded statutory powers by including drilling activities under survey and exploration beyond the scope of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner contended that drilling is not a taxable service under the relevant sections of the Act, violating constitutional provisions.The petitioner maintained that the impugned circular was without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. However, the respondent argued that the circular merely clarified accepted industrial practices and fell within the scope of the Finance Act. The respondent asserted that drilling is integral to mineral exploration and covered under 'Survey and Exploration of minerals,' thus subject to service tax. Reference was made to authoritative sources supporting the necessity of drilling in mineral exploration, emphasizing its significance in the industry.The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the non-binding nature of circulars as sole evidence for issuing show cause notices. The Court emphasized that circulars serve to clarify positions rather than levy taxes, urging the petitioner to respond to the notice while the respondent considers the case in line with statutory provisions. Consequently, the challenge to the impugned circular failed, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the circular and the show cause notice. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to reply to the notice within 30 days for further consideration by the respondent.
TaxTMI 