TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on taxable services used for authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone could be denied by applying conditions in Notification No. 9/2009-ST and Notification No. 15/2009-ST when the SEZ Act and SEZ Rules themselves did not prescribe such conditions.
Analysis: Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 grants exemption from service tax on taxable services provided to a developer or unit for authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone. Section 26(2) empowers the Central Government to prescribe the manner, terms and conditions for extending the exemption, and Rule 31 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 reflects that exemption for services used for authorised operations in SEZ. The statutory framework was found not to contain any restriction or stipulation such as those introduced through Notification No. 9/2009-ST and the amending Notification No. 15/2009-ST. In view of Section 51 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the SEZ Act and Rules were held to have overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws. The conditions imposed through the notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994 were therefore held incapable of curtailing the exemption or defeating the refund claim under the SEZ regime.
Conclusion: The refund denial based on the notification conditions was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
