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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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>Engineering College Exempted from Service Tax as Consulting Engineer: Case Overview</h1> <h3>M/s Malviya National Institute of Technology Versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Jaipur</h3> The appellant, an engineering college, was found not liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Consulting Engineer' (CE) for the period before 16 ... Classification of services - Consulting Engineer or not - period prior to 16 July 2001, namely, from 1 April 2000 to 15 July, 2001 - HELD THAT:- The definition of ‘CE’ services as it stood prior to 16 July, 2001 was not amended when a new service namely, ‘STC’ was inserted on 16 July, 2001. It cannot, therefore, be alleged that ‘STC’ service had been carved out from ‘CE’ Services. In fact, the definition of ‘CE’ services continued to remain the same, till it was amended in 2006. Thus, the Show Cause Notice proceeded on an incorrect premise that even prior to 16 July, 2001, the nature of service provided in ‘STC’ services was the same as ‘CE’ Service. The definition of ‘CE’ as it stood at the relevant time means any professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm who either directly or indirectly renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to a client in one or more disciplines of engineering. The Appellant is neither “professionally qualified engineer” or an “engineering firm”. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Appellant had been providing ‘CE’ services. In fact, the nature of service provided by the Appellant would clearly fall under the category of ‘STC’ services and the Appellant had paid service tax when this service was introduced on 16 July 2001. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Consulting Engineer' (CE) for the period prior to 16 July 2001Rs.2. Whether the definition of 'CE' as it stood at the relevant time includes the services provided by the appellantRs.3. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in referring to the definition of 'CE' as amended in 2006Rs.4. Whether the services provided by the appellant fall under the category of 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy' (STC) instead of 'CE'Rs.Analysis:1. The appellant, an engineering college, was alleged to have provided services falling under 'CE' category and was issued a Show Cause Notice for non-payment of service tax for the period before 16 July 2001. The dispute arose due to the similarity between 'CE' and 'STC' services. However, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice proceeded on an incorrect premise as the definition of 'CE' remained unchanged before 16 July 2001. The appellant had paid service tax under 'STC' services after its introduction on 16 July 2001.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order based on the amended definition of 'CE' in 2006, which included any professionally qualified engineer, body corporate, or firm. However, the Tribunal noted that the original definition of 'CE' did not include these entities at the relevant time. As the appellant was an engineering institute and did not fall under the amended definition, the services provided were correctly categorized under 'STC' services, for which service tax was paid.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in referring to the amended definition of 'CE' while deciding the case. The Tribunal highlighted that the definition in force at the relevant time did not encompass the appellant's services. Therefore, the decision based on the amended definition was incorrect, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.4. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services aligned more with 'STC' services rather than 'CE' services. The nature of services provided by the appellant, being an engineering college, fell under 'STC' services as per the original definition. The appellant had correctly paid service tax under 'STC' services post its introduction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the correct categorization of services provided by the appellant.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found