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>Sound system service providers not liable for service tax under tax law, court rules.</h1> <h3>SALEM DISTRICT SOUND SYSTEM ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court held that the petitioners, an Association providing sound system services, were not liable to pay service tax as they did not fall under the ... Service Tax – Sound System versus Pandal or Shamiana Contractor Issues:Challenge to notice regarding service tax on sound system services provided by an association.Analysis:1. The writ petition was filed by an Association challenging a notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the levy of service tax on services provided by Pandal or Shamiana Contractors. The petitioner Association claimed that they only provide sound system services and not other services. They argued that the provisions of the Finance Act regarding service tax were not applicable to them.2. The Counsel for the petitioner referred to Sections 65(26) and 65(27) of the Act, defining 'Pandal or Shamiana' and 'Pandal or Shamiana contractor.' The Counsel highlighted that these provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, but were later deleted in the Finance Act, 1998. The Counsel argued that the members of the petitioner Association should not be liable for service tax based on these provisions.3. The respondents contended that the members of the petitioner Association might be covered under the service tax net if they were engaging in services along with Pandal or Shamiana contractors. However, the petitioner maintained that all 348 members only provided sound system services and had no connection with Pandal or Shamiana contractors. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim remained unrebutted and admitted.4. The Court analyzed whether persons providing sound services could be considered 'Pandal or Shamiana contractors' under Section 65(27) of the Act. It was concluded that the legislative intent did not include sound service providers in this definition. The Court emphasized that the language of the statute did not permit the inclusion of sound service providers in the tax net based on the provisions of the Act.5. Ultimately, the Court held that since sound services were taken out of the tax net, the petitioners were not liable to pay service tax. The Court declared that persons like the petitioners, who solely provided sound system services, were exempt from service tax. However, if such persons provided any other services, the liability would be determined based on individual circumstances. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues raised, arguments presented, legal provisions considered, and the final decision of the Court regarding the challenge to the notice on service tax for sound system services provided by the Association.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
