9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 21 - AT - Service TaxService tax levy of service tax on receipt basis - . The appellant is disputing Service Tax demand of only Rs.11,358/- relating to five bills raised by them during February, 2007, March, 2007 and May, 2007 on the ground that total amounting of Rs.1,04,153/- was not yet received by them from their clients held that The service tax liability is obviously subject to realisation of the service charges. Merely because bills have been received by the appellant and the said bills have been reflected in the books of accounts, the service tax is not payable unless the amount is realised. service tax not to be demanded in respect of five bills penalty reduced proportionately.
Issues:
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 2. Whether the information should be released for publication under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 3. Whether the judges wish to see the fair copy of the Order. 4. Whether the Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities. Issue 1: Press Reporters' Access to CESTAT Rules The judgment addresses the issue of whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. It does not provide a detailed analysis but raises the question regarding the access of Press Reporters to the rules. Issue 2: Release of Information for Publication The judgment deliberates on whether the information should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, for publication in any authoritative report. The judgment does not provide a conclusive decision but highlights the consideration of releasing information for publication. Issue 3: Judges' Review of the Order The judgment questions whether the judges wish to see the fair copy of the Order. The judges are expected to review the order to ensure its accuracy and compliance with legal standards. Issue 4: Circulation of Order to Departmental Authorities The judgment discusses whether the Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities. This is a procedural aspect to ensure that relevant authorities are informed of the decision. In a case concerning the appellant providing Manpower Recruitment Services, the appeal was made against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 06.10.2009. The appellant disputed a Service Tax demand of Rs.11,358 relating to five bills raised in 2007, claiming that the total amount had not been received from clients, thereby disputing the penalties imposed. The appellant argued that Service Tax is only demandable upon realisation of service charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, suggesting it may be payable at a future date. The judgment notes that the service tax liability is contingent upon the actual realisation of the service charges, not merely upon bill receipt and accounting entries. Consequently, the appeal regarding the disputed service tax demand was allowed, leading to a proportional reduction in penalties. The judgment emphasizes the critical link between service tax liability and the actual receipt of service charges, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the meticulous consideration of the legal arguments presented, the interpretation of tax liability concerning service charges, and the ultimate decision in favor of the appellant based on the fundamental principle of tax realization.
|
