Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The dominant issue was whether imposition of service tax on admission to amusement/entertainment facilities under the Finance Act, 1994 validly operated alongside State entertainment tax, or transgressed State legislative competence under Entry 62, List II. Interpreting "entertainment," "admission," and "payment for admission" in the State statute, and applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the levy was found to be on the very amusement/entertainment provided to and consumed by the entrant, not a distinct service aspect. Since the same aspect was already covered by Entry 62, the Union could not invoke the residuary Entry 97, List I to tax it. The impugned service tax levy was held beyond Union competence and the appeal was allowed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether imposition of service tax on admission to amusement/entertainment facilities under the Finance Act, 1994 validly operated alongside State entertainment tax, or transgressed State legislative competence under Entry 62, List II. Interpreting "entertainment," "admission," and "payment for admission" in the State statute, and applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the levy was found to be on the very amusement/entertainment provided to and consumed by the entrant, not a distinct service aspect. Since the same aspect was already covered by Entry 62, the Union could not invoke the residuary Entry 97, List I to tax it. The impugned service tax levy was held beyond Union competence and the appeal was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
