9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 692 - AAR - Service TaxApplication for advance Ruling - Revenue takes objection to the admissibility on the ground that it is not a proposed activity as covered under Section 96(D) since the company is incorporated on 18.11.2011 and has been filing the Income Tax as well as Service Tax Returns from time to time during all these years. According to the Department therefore this is not a proposed activity. The second objection raised by the Revenue is that there is a sister concern of the applicant which shares with the applicant an e-mail addresses as also the postal address and in case of that concern some orders have been passed by the Service Tax Authorities. The Department therefore says that even on the second point the application can not be admitted. - Taxability of activity of services for rendering analysis of the drugs and market survey etc. AAR rejected both the contentions and admitted the application for consideration.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of proposed services for foreign clients. 2. Objection raised by the Revenue regarding the proposed activity and sister concern. Analysis: 1. The applicant sought clarification on the 'proposed services' for foreign clients, specifically related to drug analysis and market survey. The Revenue objected to the admissibility, arguing that the activity was not proposed as the company had been filing tax returns since its incorporation in 2011. The Revenue also highlighted a sister concern sharing addresses and previous orders from the Service Tax Authorities. The applicant countered, stating that despite filing returns, there had been no actual activity, as evidenced by zero income in the returns submitted to both tax authorities. 2. Regarding the objection related to the sister concern, the applicant's counsel referenced a Gujarat High Court judgment and a previous ruling by the same Authority. The Gujarat High Court judgment addressed a similar issue, and the Authority's previous ruling provided further support for admitting the application despite the presence of a sister concern. Based on these precedents, the Authority decided to admit the application, considering the lack of actual activity by the applicant and the legal interpretations provided by the previous judgments.
|
