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>Service tax dispute resolved favorably for petitioner, appeal deadline extended to ensure fair consideration</h1> <h3>M/s. MEHER FABRICATORS, Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMES & SERVICE TAX, & OTHERS</h3> M/s. MEHER FABRICATORS, Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMES & SERVICE TAX, & OTHERS - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 620 (Ker.) Issues:1. Dispute over the levy of service tax on the petitioner for the year 2008-09.2. Claim of exemption based on the aggregate value of taxable service being less than Rs.10 Lakhs.3. Rejection of exemption claim due to the petitioner's aggregate value of taxable service exceeding Rs.10 Lakhs in the previous year.4. Pending appeal against the assessment for the previous year.5. Petitioner's accountant's default in not filing the appeal against the levy.Analysis:The judgment addresses a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on the petitioner for the year 2008-09. The petitioner claimed exemption from the tax, arguing that the aggregate value of their taxable service was below Rs.10 Lakhs, citing Exts.P2 and P2(a). However, this claim was rejected based on the petitioner's previous year's aggregate value of taxable service exceeding Rs.10 Lakhs. The petitioner had filed an appeal, Ext.P6, against the assessment for the previous year, which was pending consideration. The court noted that the time for filing an appeal against the current levy had expired, but acknowledged the petitioner's claim that their accountant's default led to the non-filing of the appeal.The judgment emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of the opportunity to file an appeal against the current levy, especially considering the accountant's default. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the current levy within two weeks, allowing the appellate Commissioner to entertain and address the appeal alongside the pending Ext.P6 appeal, disregarding any delay that had occurred. This decision aimed to ensure the petitioner's right to appeal and have their case considered fairly, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the non-filing of the appeal against the levy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
