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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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>High Court upholds service tax on road transportation of goods, deems it within legislative competence</h1> The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the levy of service tax on the transportation of goods by road, ruling that it was a tax on the service ... Service Tax – Goods Transport Operator – The service tax is levied on providing the service of transportation of goods – Constitutional validity Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the levy of service tax on freight charges for the carriage of goods by road.2. Legislative competence of the Parliament to impose such a tax.3. Allegations of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Levy of Service Tax:The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the levy of service tax by the Parliament on freight charges incurred for the carriage of goods by road. They argued that the tax imposed by Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by subsequent Finance Acts, was unconstitutional and ultra vires to the legislative powers of the Parliament. The petitioners contended that the provisions were unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. Legislative Competence of the Parliament:The primary argument revolved around the legislative competence of the Parliament to legislate on matters that, according to the petitioners, fell exclusively within the domain of the State Legislature. The petitioners argued that taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or inland waterways were within the exclusive domain of the State Legislature as per Entry 56 in List-II of Schedule-VII of the Constitution. They contended that the tax imposed by the impugned Acts was essentially a tax on goods and passengers, which was outside the scope of Parliament's legislative competence.3. Arguments and Counterarguments:The respondents countered that the tax levied by the Parliament was not on goods or passengers but on the service of providing transportation. They argued that the tax was within the domain of the Parliament as it was a tax on services. The respondents relied on various judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Laghu Udyog Bharathi v. Union of India, which held that the levy of service tax on users of goods transport operator services was illegal. However, subsequent amendments to the Finance Act were made to validate the imposition of the tax and rectify the defects pointed out by the Supreme Court.4. Relevant Judgments:Several judgments were cited to support the arguments of both parties:- Laghu Udyog Bharathi v. Union of India (1999): The Supreme Court held that certain rules making persons other than clearing and forwarding agents responsible for collecting service tax were ultra vires the Act.- Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam (1964): The Supreme Court held that the State Legislature had the power to levy a tax on goods carried by road under Entry 56 of List-II.- M/s. Sainik Motors, Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan (1961): The Supreme Court held that a tax on passengers and goods carried by road was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.- A.S. Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala (1974): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a tax on passengers and goods carried by road, emphasizing that the tax was on the service provided.5. Supreme Court's Decision in Tamilnadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India (2004):The Supreme Court upheld the validity of service tax on mandap keepers, holding that the tax was on services and not on the sale or hire of goods. The Court emphasized that the tax could be attributed to the residuary power of the Parliament under Article 246(1) of the Constitution.6. Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the service tax levied on the transportation of goods by road was a tax on the service provided and not on the goods themselves. The Court held that the tax was within the legislative competence of the Parliament and dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the tax. The Court also noted that the validation provisions in the Finance Acts were not seriously contested and were within the Parliament's power to amend the Act.Judgment:The writ petitions were dismissed, and the levy of service tax on the transportation of goods by road was upheld as constitutionally valid and within the legislative competence of the Parliament.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found