Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court invalidates Service Tax Rules conflicting with Finance Act, 1994, clarifies provider responsibility, orders customer refunds.</h1> <h3>LAGHU UDYOG BHARATI Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The court found Rules 2(xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1997 to be invalid as they conflicted with the Finance Act, 1994. It held that the ... Service Tax – Services by clearing and forwarding agents and goods transport operators to their clients – Demand for refund – Taxable service – Liability to pay service tax Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rules 2(xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1997.2. Interpretation of Sections 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 71 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Ultra vires nature of the Service Tax Rules vis-`a-vis the Finance Act.4. Refund of service tax paid by customers or clients of clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Rules 2(xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1997:The petitioners challenged the validity of Rules 2(xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1997, asserting that these sub-rules are contrary to Sections 65 and 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court examined the legislative history and provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and subsequent amendments, concluding that the impugned sub-rules conflict with the Act's provisions. Specifically, these rules incorrectly designated the customers or clients of clearing and forwarding agents and goods transport operators as the persons responsible for collecting the service tax, which is contrary to the statutory definitions and charging sections.2. Interpretation of Sections 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 71 of the Finance Act, 1994:The court provided an in-depth analysis of the relevant sections:- Section 65 defines various terms, including 'assessee,' 'goods transport operator,' 'person responsible for collecting the service tax,' and 'taxable service.'- Section 66 is the charging section, imposing a 5% service tax on the value of taxable services provided by the person responsible for collecting the service tax.- Sections 67 and 68 detail the valuation, collection, and recovery of service tax, emphasizing that the person providing the service is responsible for collecting and remitting the tax.- Sections 70 and 71 outline the procedure for filing returns and assessments, reinforcing that the responsibility lies with the service provider, not the customer.3. Ultra vires nature of the Service Tax Rules vis-`a-vis the Finance Act:The court held that the provisions of Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) are ultra vires the Finance Act. The rules improperly shifted the responsibility for collecting and remitting the service tax to the customers or clients of the service providers, which is inconsistent with the Act. The Act clearly stipulates that the service provider is the assessee and responsible for the tax. The court quashed these sub-rules, stating that they conflict with the statutory framework and cannot be enforced.4. Refund of service tax paid by customers or clients of clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators:The court directed that any service tax paid by customers or clients of clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators should be refunded within twelve weeks upon their request. This decision was based on the finding that the impugned rules were invalid, and therefore, any tax collected under these rules was not legally justified.Additional Judgments:- W.P. (C) No. 262 of 1998: The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.- W.P. (C) Nos. 228 of 1998 and 5 of 1999: These petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to raise contentions before the authorities under the Act if an appeal is filed by the members of the petitioner-Association.- I.A. No. 6/99 in W.P. (C) No. 53 of 1998: The application for intervention was dismissed, as the main writ petition had already been disposed of. The applicant was allowed to proceed with their pending writ petition in the High Court.In conclusion, the court's judgment clarified the statutory responsibilities for collecting and remitting service tax, invalidated certain rules that were inconsistent with the Finance Act, and provided for the refund of improperly collected taxes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found