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 Rule: Tax Liability on Actual Receipts in Accounts (1)</h1> <h3>Shahrukh Khan Versus C.C.G.S.T., Mumbai West</h3> Shahrukh Khan Versus C.C.G.S.T., Mumbai West - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 regarding payment of service tax by the appellant.- Determination of the liability of service tax payment based on receipt of service charges from an associated enterprise or when booked in the books of accounts of the associated enterprise.Analysis:The appeal involved a case where the appellant, registered for providing taxable services, had leased premises to a company in which he was a director. The company recorded a payment of service tax for the rent amount, but the appellant did not pay the service tax, claiming it was not received in his books of accounts. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, specifically the explanation regarding transactions with associated enterprises.The appellant contended that they followed a mercantile accounting system and paid the service tax when the rent amount was received in their books of accounts. The Revenue alleged that once the associated enterprise credited the rent amount to the appellant's accounts, service tax became payable. Both parties heavily relied on the explanation to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which clarified that payments received towards taxable services from associated enterprises should include amounts credited in the books of the person liable to pay service tax.Upon analysis, the Tribunal found that the appellant, as the person liable to pay service tax, was required to pay the tax when the amount was received in their books of accounts. The explanation to Rule 6(1) clearly indicated that payments from associated enterprises should be considered for service tax liability. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. The judgment emphasized the literal interpretation of the provision to determine the service tax liability based on actual receipt in the appellant's accounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
