Topic
The Finance Act, 1994 is the primary Indian statute that introduced and governs service tax, defining taxable services and prescribing compliance obligations for taxpayers.
CESTAT held that airline cancellation fees are liquidated damages, not a separate service taxable under Section 66E(e) Finance Act 1994. The ruling exempts airlines from paying service tax on penal charges, affecting carriers and passengers.
CESTAT held that trading income and rent from residential property are not services under Section 65B(44) Finance Act 1994, and set aside a Rs 19,72,702 demand for FY 2013/14 to 2015/16, giving relief to traders and residential landlords wrongly taxed.
CESTAT Bangalore ruled that the Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA), a member-based trade union, does not qualify as a 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' under the Finance Act, 1994, because the workers are members of the organisation rather than employees deployed through an intermediary service. The decision clarifies that the mutuality principle excludes such collective self-employment arrangements from service tax liability, impacting similar member-driven collectives and cooperatives.
The Meghalaya High Court held that a Service Tax assessment issued after an 8.5-year delay is ultra vires, as Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 mandates a strict limitation period. Tax authorities must complete assessments within the prescribed timeline, protecting assessee rights.
The Tribunal confirmed that fees collected by STPI for certifying SOFTEX forms and issuing No Objection Certificates constitute a taxable business support service under the Finance Act, 1994. This makes such charges liable to service tax, affecting all software parks and entities seeking SOFTEX certification.
Referral commissions earned by automobile dealers for steering customers to banks and insurers are now deemed a Business Auxiliary Service and thus taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Because the dealer had settled the entire tax liability before the show-cause notice, the Supreme Court set aside the penalty under Section 73. This clarifies tax treatment for dealers and limits penalty exposure when tax is paid promptly.
CESTAT ruled that royalties for pre-installing Microsoft operating systems are not ‘IPR services’, rendering the service-tax demand invalid and time-barred because tax cannot be levied before 16 May 2008 or after the limitation period. The decision shields hardware manufacturers that bundle OS software.
CESTAT ruled that a bill containing the essential particulars prescribed under service tax law is sufficient to serve as a consignment note for Goods Transport Agency services. Consequently, the service tax demand and penalty imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside, relieving logistics providers of the tax liability.
The tribunal quashed a Rs 89.13 lakh service tax demand, holding that royalty payable under a mining lease granted before 1 April 2016 falls outside the service tax net. It also ruled that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked, benefiting entities with pre-2016 mining assignments.
CESTAT ruled that the freight concession granted to UltraTech under the LWIS does not constitute consideration for a taxable service, overturning service tax, interest and penalty demands. Consequently, entities receiving similar concessions are exempt from service tax liability.
CESTAT ruled that fees for coaching classes preparing students for CA-CPT, ICWA-Foundation and 10+2 examinations fall within the exemption granted by Notification 33/2011-ST, overturning a Rs 35.4 lakh service-tax demand. The decision benefits all commercial training centres offering recognised qualification coaching.
CESTAT rules that meeting fees paid to whole-time directors are exempt from service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, as they qualify as employer-employee remuneration per Section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision clarifies the tax liability for companies paying directors' fees, impacting corporate tax compliance and remuneration structures.
CESTAT Chennai rules that the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 for service tax demands cannot be invoked without concrete evidence of wilful suppression, fraud, or intent to evade tax. The ruling sets a precedent that mere non-filing or interpretational disputes do not justify extended limitation periods, impacting taxpayers facing retrospective demands.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in taxable value for service tax before 2015 amendment to Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that royalty payments for technical know-how under a Technical License Contract Agreement do not constitute Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) services under Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994, setting aside service tax demand.