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>British national's service tax exemption application for setting up call center in India rejected by Advance Ruling Authority</h1> <h3>RE: JASON JAMES CLEMENS</h3> The Advance Ruling Authority rejected the British national's application seeking clarification on service tax exemptions for exported services and ... Service Tax -(1) Difference between Notifications and Boards Circular (2) Tax liability of secondary services which are used by the primary service provider for the export of service (3) Refund Issues:Jurisdiction of Advance Ruling Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The applicant, a British national, sought an advance ruling regarding setting up an international call center in India to sell products to customers in Europe and Asia. The applicant claimed that services provided, constituting export of services, should be exempt from service tax. The applicant also argued that secondary services used in exporting primary services should not be subject to service tax. The applicant relied on Circulars and Notifications to support their position.The Authority examined the jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows advance rulings on specific questions. The Authority considered whether the applicant's questions fell within the scope of this provision. The applicant's reliance on Circulars and Notifications was analyzed to determine if they were applicable to the issues raised.The Authority concluded that the questions raised did not align with the provisions specified under sub-section (2) of Section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994. The Authority found that the Circulars and Notifications cited by the applicant did not directly address the issues at hand. Therefore, the Authority rejected the application for an advance ruling based on the lack of alignment with the statutory provisions.In summary, the judgment delved into the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority, the applicant's arguments regarding service tax exemptions for exported services and secondary services, and the applicability of Circulars and Notifications in determining the tax implications. The decision to reject the application was based on the lack of alignment with the statutory provisions governing advance rulings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
