Binding precedent: administrative circulars cannot override the Court's authoritative interpretation; courts must apply that law. Administrative circulars cannot prevail over the law laid down by the highest court; courts and tribunals must apply the Court's authoritative interpretation. A protective rule preserved benefits already granted under exemption notifications from reopening, but did not permit adjudicative bodies to follow circulars in preference to the Court's decision where entitlement was contested and proceedings were pending.
Binding effect of government circulars: administrative clarifications do not bind courts or quasi judicial authorities and cannot create estoppel. Government circulars and clarifications represent administrative understanding of statutory provisions and do not bind courts or quasi judicial authorities; they cannot create an estoppel against the statute and do not prevent recovery of tax lawfully leviable despite prior communications to taxpayers.
Service elements in works contracts taxable when classifiable under construction or erection services, not limited to a new label. Service elements within a composite works contract that correspond in nature to Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, Construction of Complex Service or Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service are taxable under those service heads; such service elements need not be classified exclusively under the subsequently inserted sub clause, and levy under the existing defined service categories is proper based on the substantive character of the activities.
Resident firm classification for advance ruling expands eligible applicants under service tax advance ruling framework. Notification declares resident firm as a class of persons eligible for advance rulings under section 96A of the Finance Act, 1994 for service tax. It defines "firm" to include partnerships under the Indian Partnership Act, limited liability partnerships (including those without a company partner), sole proprietorships, and One Person Companies, and links the term "resident" to the meaning in the Income-tax Act as applicable to a resident firm.
Whether in case, composite price (inclusive of service tax) is shown in invoice and no separate duty indicated , will be treated as unjust enrichment i.e. burden of service tax liability has been transferred?
7 April, 2015
Contents
Acts
Plus +
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Inclusive pricing does not establish passing on of tax burden; composite invoices alone do not prove unjust enrichment. Showing a composite price on an invoice does not, by itself, establish that the supplier passed the tax burden to customers or realized unjust enrichment; ... Summary
Inclusive pricing does not establish passing on of tax burden; composite invoices alone do not prove unjust enrichment.
Showing a composite price on an invoice does not, by itself, establish that the supplier passed the tax burden to customers or realized unjust enrichment; where prices remained unchanged after a tax was imposed, inclusive pricing alone is insufficient evidence that any element of tax was added to the price, and proof of an added tax component is required to infer passing on of the tax.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.