2010 (5) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?  BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. These writ petitions are taken up for disposal together because they raise common issues.   2. The petitioners urged that prior to 18.04.2006, that is, the date on which Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994, cross-border services provided by a foreign service provider could not be taxed at the hands of resident recipients, such as the petitioners.  However, after 18.04.2006, by virtue of the introduction of Section 66A, if any service specified in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, is provided or to be provided by a person, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal Shipowners Association v. Union of India (UOI): 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.), held that the provisions of Section 66A would be applicable only from 18.04.2006 and that prior to that date, services rendered by a non-resident service provider to a resident recipient could not be taxed as a service at the hands of the resident recipient.  5. In fact, the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) has more than adequately dealt with the entire issue.  The concluding observations of the Bombay High Court are as under:- "...  It appears that it is the first time when the Act was amended and Section  66A  was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006, the Respondents got legal authori....