Registration Of Lawyers For Service Tax Stayed By Madras High Court

The Revenue Bar Association, Madras, filed a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court challenging the validity of levy of service-tax on “legal consultancy services”. The Court has passed an order of interim injunction dated 24.06.2011 restraining the Ministry of Finance from compelling the members of the Petitioner from registering themselves with the service tax authorities andcollecting service-tax from them until further orders.


Click here to download Madras HC order dated 24.06.11 staying service-tax on lawyers:
http://dhavaldesaisays.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/service_tax_registration_stay.pdf

High Court stay for Service tax on bar attached hotels

FORWARDED EMAIL IS ATTACHED

It is understood from reliable sources that Kerala High Court has granted stay for two months on service tax on Bar attahced hotels.

Service tax on Air conditioned Restaurent (Bar attached hotel) service was made taxable from 1.5.2011

The order is awaited. will share the copy of the order at the earliest.

This is for your information



With Warm Regards,

CA. TONY.M.P
THRISSUR,KERALA
Mobile: 094470 80631. 

Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court's service tax order on rent

January, 13th 2011

The Supreme Court has stayed an order of the Delhi High Court, which stopped the Centre from recovering service tax on renting of immovable property for commercial use, including shops and malls, from some firms.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Mukundakam Sharma and A R Dave stayed the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court on May 18, 2010. The Centre has challenged the order.

"There shall be an interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgement till the next date," said the apex court, directing that the matter be listed for next hearing on January 20.

The High court, allowing the appeal of around 20 firms including Home Solutions Retail, had stayed the amendments made by the government in the Budget, 2010-11.

In the Finance Act, 2010, the government had amended taxing entry of "Renting of Immovable Property service", with retrospective effect, from June 1, 2007

Renting Judgement In Favour of Govt. by P&H High Court - Bad News

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CWP No. 11597 of 2010 (O&M)

M/s Shubh Timb Steels Limited-----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another----Respondents

Coram:Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal

Date of Judgment: 22.11.2010

Excerpts : It cannot be held that renting of property did not involve any service as service could only be in
relation to property and not by renting of property. Renting of property for commercial purposes is certainly a service and has value for the service receiver. Even if it is held that transaction of transfer of right in immovable
property did not involve value addition, the provision cannot be held to be void in absence of encroachment on List II.(Para 22)

It is well settled that competent legislature can always clarify or validate a law retrospectively. It cannot be held to be harsh or arbitrary. Object of validating law is to rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna and to effectuate and to carry out the object for which earlier law was enacted. We do not find any ground to set aside giving of retrospective effect to the amendment from 1.6.2007 on which date levy was initially provided."
 

FULL TEXT ATTACHED
 

Click here to download: http://dhavaldesaisays.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/renting.doc 

No ST on foreign service prior to 18.4.2006 Says Supreme Court

Now It is Final - No Service Tax on foreign service prior to 18.4.2006: Supreme Court dismisses Revenue SLP

TIOL-DDT 1258
15.12.2009
Tuesday
IS it 1.1.2005 or 18.4.2006?

In the Hindustan Zinc case - 2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-DEL-LB, a Larger Bench of the Tribunal headed by the President held that, “the taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1.1.2005, under notification No.36 /2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.2005 notwithstanding the amendment in rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules under notification no. 12/2004.”

The Department had challenged this in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Government's appeal - 2009-TIOL-87-SC-ST.

This, many in the Government, take as a reason to state that the Supreme Court had confirmed that Service Tax on import of services is payable from 1.1.2005 and not 18.4.2006 as held by the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association – 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST

 

The Supreme Court had not held that the tax is payable from 1.1.2005, but only dismissed the Revenue appeal against the CESTAT order holding that it was not payable before 1.1.2005. And there is a lot of difference in the two concepts.

Anyway not satisfied with the dismissal of its appeal by the Supreme Court, the Government filed a review petition in the Supreme Court in the Hindustan Zinc case. The Supreme Court found no merit in the prayer for Review and dismissed the Review Petition. - 2009-TIOL-117-SC-ST

 

You will remember that in Indian National Shipowners Association – 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST the Bombay High Court held that the tax is payable only from 18.04.2006 and this decision had been widely followed.

But the litigation loving government does not keep quiet. It has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court judgement.

Yesterday the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and in tune with TIOL tradition – we are the first to bring you this news.  

Kind regards,

 Rebecca Andrews

1.FOLLOW US ON TWITTER CLICK HERE: http://twitter.com/taxpertindia2.Posted www.taxpertindia.blogspot.com
3.Get Tax updates from my blog through by joining my google group
CA_taxmannindia:http://groups.google.co.in/group/ca_taxmannindia?hl=en
5.Get Free Quality SMS updates from my blog on your MOBILE:http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/ca_taxmannindia
OR
Send a message JOIN ca_taxmannindia to 9870807070 thru ur mobile nd receive updates

Reversal of cenvat credit on WIP/ finished goods written off in the books of accounts -reg

Circular No. 907/27/2009-CX


F.No.267/141/2009-CX8
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Central Board of Excise & Customs)

New Delhi, dated the 7th December, 2009.

To,

All Chief Commissioners of Central Excise (including LTU),
All Commissioners of Central Excise (including LTU),
All Director Generals.

Sir/ Madam,

Subject: Clarification on issues related to reversal of cenvat credit on WIP/ finished goods written off in the books of accounts -reg.

References have been received from field formations stating that as per Rule 3(5B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if the value of inputs is fully written off, then the manufacture is required to pay an amount equal to cenvat credit taken. However, there is no provision to demand reversal of credit taken on inputs which have gone into manufacture of work in progress (WIP), semi finished goods and finished goods which have also been written off fully in the books of accounts.

Notification No. 34/2009-Service Tax

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZZETE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II,

SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 1
st September, 2009


Notification No. 34/2009-Service Tax

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994

(32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public

interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 1/2006-

Service Tax, dated the 1st March 2006, G.S.R. 115(E), dated the 1
st March, 2006, namely:-

2. In the said notification, in the Table, in S.No.11 for the entry in column (3), the

following entry shall be substituted, namely:-

“Transport of goods in containers by rail.”

F. No. 356/24/2009-TRU

Prashant Kumar

Under Secretary to the Government of India

Note.-
The principal notification No. 1/2006-Service Tax, dated the 1st March, 2006, was

published vide number G.S.R. 115(E), dated the 1
st March, 2006 and last amended vide

notification No.29/2009 dated the 31st August 2009, published vide number G.S.R.618(E),

dated the 31 st August,2009.

posted at www.taxmannindia.blogspot.com

Notification No. 31/2009-Service Tax

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II,

SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 1
st September, 2009.


Notification No. 31/2009-Service Tax

G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the

Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central

Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby

exempts the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (zzb) of clause (105) of section 65 of the

Finance Act,1994, provided by a sub-broker, to a stock-broker as defined in clause (101) of

Section 65 of the Finance Act,1994, in relation to sale or purchase of securities listed on a

registered stock exchange from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66

of the said Finance Act.

[F.No.354/175/2009-TRU]

(Prashant Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

posted at www.taxmannindia.blogspot.com

Notification No. 32/2009-Service Tax

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II,

SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 1
st September, 2009.


Notification No. 32/2009-Service Tax

G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the

Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central

Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby

exempts the taxable service referred to in sub-clause (zzb) of clause (105) of section 65 of the

Finance Act,1994, provided by any person, to a client as defined in clause (19) of Section 65

of the Finance Act,1994, in relation to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products,

medicines, perfumery, cosmetics or toilet preparations containing alcohol, which are charged

to excise duty under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 from the

whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act.

[F.No.354/182/2009-TRU]

(Prashant Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Government of India
posted at www.taxmannindia.blogspot.com

Notification No. 33/2009 - Service Tax

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZZETE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II,

SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 1
st September, 2009


Notification No. 33/2009 - Service Tax

G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the

Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central

Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby

exempts the taxable service provided to any person in relation to transport of goods by rail, as

referred to in sub-clause (zzzp) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, from the

whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act,

provided, nothing contained in this notification shall apply to any service provided or

to be provided, by any person other than government railway, in relation to transport of goods

in containers by rail.

F. No. 356/24/2009-TRU

Prashant Kumar

Under Secretary to the Government of India

posted at www.taxmannindia.blogspot.com

Service tax exemption for specified goods

The Finance Ministry has now given service tax exemption on transportation of certain specified goods by rail or through inland water and coastal shipping. The exemption has been given keeping in mind the common man, a Finance Ministry official said. The Budget 2009-10 had imposed service tax on transport of goods by rail. Separately, it had also brought services provided in relation to transport of coastal goods and goods through inland water, including national waterways under the service tax net. All the Budget announcements on service tax came into effect from Tuesday. In case of rail services, the Finance Ministry has now said that transport of defence/military equipment, railway equipment/materials, postal mail bags, luggage of train passengers, parcels (including newspapers/magazines), foodgrains, sugar, fertilisers, milk and milk products, fruits and vegetables and motor vehicles will not attract service tax. Also, kerosene oil meant for supply through public distribution system, petroleum products including LPG cylinders booked by public sector oil marketing companies and transported by Indian Railways will now be service tax exempt. For transport of goods through inland water and coastal shipping, the exempted items include edible oils, foodgrains, fruits, vegetables and flowers, tea and coffee, sugar, sugarcane, grocery, fertiliser, sarees, petroleum and petroleum products, raw jute and jute textile, hank yarn made from cotton, medicine and pharmaceutical products and newspapers and magazines. “All essential items and those used by Government have been service tax exempt in the case of transportation of goods by rail or through inland water and coastal shipping,” Mr Pratik Jain, Executive Director, KPMG, told Business Line. Meanwhile, for transport of goods by rail, the Finance Ministry has now specified an abatement rate of 70 per cent.
– www.thehindubusinessline.com


posted at www.taxmannindia.blogspot.com

New Services liable to Service Tax from 1-9-2009

New Services liable to Service Tax from 1-9-2009

Notification No. 26/2009-Service Tax, dated 19-8-2009

 In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (A) and (B) of section 113 of the Finance Act, 2009 (33 of 2009), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of September, 2009, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force.

receive SMS updates just click here to join it
http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/ca_taxmannindia

Service tax on commission paid to Managing Director/Directors by the company

Circular No. 115/09/2009-ST, dated 31-7-2009

Below mentioned issues have been referred to the Board seeking clarifications,-

(i) applicability of service tax under ‘Business Auxiliary service’ on commission paid to Managing Director / Directors (whole time, or Independent) by the company,

(ii) applicability of service tax on Independent Directors who are part of the Board of Directors under ‘Management Consultant service’.

2. Both the matters have been examined by the Board and the clarifications are as under, -

(i) Some Companies make payments to Managing Director/Directors (Whole-time or Independent), terming the same as ‘Commissions’. The said amount paid by a company to their Managing Director/Directors (Whole-time or Independent) even if termed as commission, is not the ‘commission’ that is within the scope of business auxiliary service and hence service tax would not be leviable on such amount.

(ii) The Managing Director / Directors (Whole-time or Independent) being part of Board of Directors perform management function and they do not perform consultancy or advisory function. The definition of management consultant service makes it clear that what is envisaged from a consultant is advisory service and not the actual performance of the management function. The payments made by Companies, to Directors cannot be termed as payments for providing management consultancy service. Therefore, it is clarified that the amount paid to Directors (Whole-time or Independent) is not chargeable to service tax under the category ‘Management Consultancy service’. However, in case such directors provide any advice or consultancy to the company, for which they are being compensated separately, such service would become chargeable to service tax.

3. In view of the above, it is clarified that remunerations paid to Managing Director / Directors of companies whether whole-time or independent when being compensated for their performance as Managing Director/Directors would not be liable to service tax.

 

Pending issues may be resolved in line with the above. 

vERIFICATION OF CORRECTNESS OF PAN DETAILS

Friends,

               There is one web site thru' which we can check the status of the Service Tax Regn number. As u know the Service Tax Regn no. is (PAN)ST001. 
 
I guess the below mentioned link website may be helpful...
 http://sermon.nic.in/sermon/pan_search.html

Notification on Service tax exemption to maintenance of road

Notification No. 24/2009-Service Tax, dated 27th July, 2009 exempted Repairs and maintenance work of Roads too from service tax. Notification is given below:-

New Delhi, the 27th July, 2009. Notification No. 24/2009-Service Tax G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service, referred to in sub-clause (zzg) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act,1994, provided to any person by any other person in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act.[F.No.B-1/1/ 2009-TRU](Prashant Kumar)

Table of Abatement

Service Tax on Commercial Rent Held Unconstitutional

The Delhi High Court has struck down the levy of service tax on renting
of immovable property as "unconstitutional", while deciding 26 writ petitions of different petitioners, by a combined order. The division bench of the Delhi High Court comprised of Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed that service tax shall not be levied on renting of immovable property.

Alishan Naqvee, Advocate, LexCounsel Law Offices, who represented his clients in two of the petitions disposed off today, tells that the category of "renting of immovable property service" was introduced by the Finance Act of 2007. This, in effect brought renting, letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements of immovable property for use in the course of furtherance of business and commerce, within the service tax net with effect from June 1, 2007. This new levy severely impacted business models across India as most of the rent arrangements did not even stipulate it beforehand.

The businesses across India opted to en masse challenge the constitutionality of levy of service tax on rent, on the primary grounds that renting does not involve any service, and the Central Government is not empowered to tax consideration for transfer of rights in immovable property, being a state subject as per the Constitution of India. Few High Courts, including the High Court of Mumbai, Delhi, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Kolkata and Chennai reportedly granted interim reliefs to the petitioners from payment of service tax until final disposal of their matters. The stays were however granted subject to undertakings by the petitioners, mainly tenants, to deposit the service tax amount with the Government if the tax was ultimately held constitutional. The Delhi High Court however is the first High Court to deliver the final order in the matter that would have persuasive value for the other High Courts.


The detailed order of the Delhi High Court is expected to be available within the next couple of working days. One issue that needs to be seen is whether the Delhi High Court has expressly limited the applicability of its judgment to its territorial jurisdiction. Notably, while granting interim orders, the Delhi High Court had expressed that the stays would be operative within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, a number of petitioners, having operations in multiple states, were constrained to knock at the doors of the other High Courts.

To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Union of India preferred a transfer petition to the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of all writ petitions pending before different High Courts of India, to the Delhi High Court for single window adjudication.

It is open for the Government to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court. The judgment however delivers great relief to the business by helping liquidity in the current times.