Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 681 to 700 of 420402 Records

• 2024 (11) TMI 942
  

  Abuse of dominance and anti-competitive practices in violation of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the present case, the Commission observes that alleged disparate disputes raised in the Information appear to be individual/contractual disputes regarding alleged mis-representation/ mis-selling/ deficiency in service against various OPs and do not involve competition concerns as such. Further, no material has been provided by the Informant to indicate violation of any provision of the Act.

  The nature of disputes raised in the matter do not fall under the ambit of the Act and for redressal of the said grievances, remedy(ies), if any, may lie before an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

  The Commission is of the considered view that no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the present matter and decides to close the matter forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 941
  

  Contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - abuse of dominant position - HELD THAT:- The Commission has perused the Information, including legal notices served by the Informant upon OP-1 and OP-2 and also their respective replies. The Informant appears to be primarily aggrieved by: (i) arbitrary change in delivery time of the car from two months to eight months; (ii) pick and choose policy in delivery of the car; (iii) unlawful demand of premium by DSAs; (iv) imposition of RPM; and (v) forcing customers to purchase accessories. The Informant has alleged that OP-1 has a dominant position in the relevant market of ‘strong hybrid passenger vehicles in the territory of India’ and has violated provisions of Sections 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(c) of the Act.

  The Commission is of the view that the primary issue in the matter appears to be revolving around the waiting period in delivery of the car booked by the Informant and prices of accessories. The Commission notes that such kind of allegations bear the tone and tenor of inter se dispute between Informant and OP1/ OP2 and does not have market-wide anti-competitive ramifications, in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. Normally, long waiting period cannot be the subject matter of antitrust scrutiny as they are dependent upon various factors including reasons adduced by the OP1 - As regard price, the Commission is of the view that the same is an outcome of demand and supply forces in the market and consumer preferences, among others. In the present case, the Informant has failed to highlight whether such prices have overtone of being ‘unfair’ or ‘discriminatory’ in terms of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the allegations levelled above do not reveal any anti-competitive concern and consequently, the Commission finds no reason to carry out an analysis of abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Parties.

  The allegation pertaining to RPM i.e., Section 3(4) of the Act requires the existence of an agreement amongst enterprises or persons at different stages or levels of the production chain in different markets in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, sale or price of, or trade in goods or provision of services which causes or is likely to cause AAEC in India. The Commission notes that the Informant has not substantiated his allegation of RPM by way of any evidence to show the existence of any such agreement.

  Thus, no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against the Opposite Parties and the Commission directs that the matter be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 940
  

  Contravention of provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - abuse of dominant position - it is alleged that Google is granting exclusive access to Truecaller to share private contact information of the users with everyone while prohibiting other apps from doing the same - HELD THAT:- The Commission has perused the rival submissions of the Informant and Google. Based on the experiment run by the Informant, it appears that users have voluntarily provided the contact details data to Truecaller. Therefore, the allegations of the Informant that Truecaller is engaging in ‘unauthorised publishing’ or that Google has allowed any preferential access to Truecaller do not appear to be substantiated.

  The Commission is of the view that the allegation of the Informant remains unsubstantiated and despite sufficient opportunity, the Informant has not provided any evidence to prima facie establish that Google is according either preferential treatment to Truecaller or resorting to discriminatory practises by allowing access to user’s contact data to Truecaller while denying the same to the competing applications.

  The Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against Google in the instant matter. Accordingly, the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is also rejected.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 939
  

  Violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - spreading false rumours in the market about the changes in prices by issuing rate cards with lower rates than those of suppliers which ultimately is having an adverse effect on the sellers and customers - HELD THAT:- The Commission notes that the Informant has levelled allegations against 5 OPs with the apprehension that they would collectively abuse their dominant position in future. The Commission observes that it is a settled position that the provisions of the Act do not provide for inquiry into the cases of joint/collective dominance. In view thereof, no case of contravention under Section 4 of the Act is made out.

  As regards alleged violation of provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the Commission, having considered the evidence submitted by the Informant viz FIR dated 23.06.2023 and two newspaper articles, notes that, prima-facie, the said evidence does not point towards alleged cartelization by the OPs. The Commission further notes that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not getting established that spreading alleged false rumours/ misinformation is the result of cartelisation or are resulting into cartelisation as there are multiple buyers and sellers in the market and the price of the commodity is determined by way of negotiation on a day-to-day basis.

  The Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case and the Information filed is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the same is also rejected.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 938
  

  Contravention under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 - fraudulent conduct leading to recovery proceedings against the property of the Informant - HELD THAT:- The Commission is of the view that the above facts and circumstances do not involve any competition issue, and resultantly, does not warrant scrutiny from the perspective of the Act.

  Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the Act is made out against the OPs. Accordingly, the information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.

  Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is rejected.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 937
  

  Contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - delisting of plugins from the plugin’s directory maintained by WordPress - abuse of dominant position - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the wordpress.org is primarily a CMS services which simplifies website development for non- technical users by providing pre-built templates, plugins, and a user-friendly interface for adding, editing, and organizing content and enables them to manage website content easily by reducing the need for extensive coding. Traditional website design and development agencies, as well as in-house website building and management teams, could also be considered to be competing with CMS providers - first relevant product market in the present case could be market for provision of Content Management Software (CMS). Furthermore, India may be considered as relevant geographic market. Accordingly, the primary relevant market in the present matter is the market for provision of Content Management Software (CMS) in India.

  In relation to dominance of WordPress within this market, the OP has submitted that WordPress.org is a leading directory for listing WordPress plug-ins, but not the only directory. The Plug-in Directory on WordPress.org is considered as one of the more reliable sources for downloading plug-ins because of the rigorous review each plug- in submitted to the Plug-in Directory has to go through. Further, based on the available information, it is noted that WordPress Plugin Directory hosts around 60000 plugins while other directories have significantly less number of plugins. Therefore, it appears that WordPress is a dominant player in this relevant market.

  The Commission is of the view that WordPress.org is justified in taking appropriate action against any developer found non-compliant with the prescribed standards and regulations. It is also noted that guidelines have not been applied in a discriminatory manner and around 35 developers including the Informant have been permanently banned from WordPress.org for repeated violation of the Guidelines. Therefore, the conduct of the Opposite Party does not appear to be either unfair or discriminatory.

  The Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against the Opposite Party in the instant matter. Accordingly, the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is also rejected.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 936
  

  Contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 - non-marketing of patented dietary supplement sold under the brand name ‘Protestin’ due to the alleged non-cooperation of the Opposite Parties - prayer for free and fair marketing from all premises including specified areas (MNCs, private hospitals, West Bengal Fair Price Shop etc.) and others (non-specified premises) - HELD THAT:- The Commission has perused certain emails sent by the Informant to several entities including some Opposite Parties and is of the view that these emails appear to have been sent for the purpose of soliciting business for his product and do not reveal existence of any agreement or arrangement as envisaged under the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act. The Commission is of the considered view that in absence of any apparent anti-competitive conduct, the decision of purchase or sale of a product and quantity thereof is driven by the commercial considerations of the market players. Therefore, it may not be desirable for the Commission to intervene in such cases where anti-competitive behaviour is not discernible.

  The Commission observes that no such agreement has been shown to exist between the Opposite Parties that may be held to be anti-competitive in terms of the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that there does not appear to be contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act and the matter be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act forthwith. Consequently, no case for grant of reliefs as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 935
  

  Contravention of provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - forcible transfer of entity from one form/type of organization structure to another - HELD THAT:- The primary grievance of the Informant appears to be emanating from a circular/letter No. NABL/ANCMT/2023/01/22-03 dated 22.03.2023, issued by NABL, directing its accredited CABs which are under proprietorship form to align with any of the following forms of entity by 30.12.2023 i.e., One Person Company, Limited Liability Partnership, Company, Society/Trust, Government. It is stated that most of the CABs are micro and small enterprises in India as it is easier to establish these labs under sole proprietorship firms and migrating these labs under any other forms will pose many challenges and it may not be economically viable for the small and medium entrepreneur to survive. This has been alleged by the Informant to be violative of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.

  The Commission, vide order dated 22.08.2023 passed under Section 26(2) of the Act in Case No. 12 of 2023, had inter-alia, held that there was no reason to intervene with the impugned circular, as the same was mandating a structure which a laboratory had to follow if it wished to seek accreditation services from NABL. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Commission to re-examine the contents of the impugned circular from the competition perspective in the instant matter.

  With regards to alleged violation under Section 3 of the Act, the Commission notes that the Informant has neither referred to any particular agreement nor provided any document which could suggest existence of anti-competitive agreement in the matter.

  The Commission is of the prima facie view that no case is made out against NABL in respect of either Section 3 or 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the Information filed is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of reliefs as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 934
  

  Contravention of provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - unilateral changes in allotment of housekeeping staff and increase in Monthly Maintenance Charges - abuse of dominant position - whether the Opposite Parties fall in the category of ‘enterprise’? - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, since Opposite Parties are undertaking commercial activities, they squarely fall under the ambit of ‘enterprise’ in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act. Thereafter, an appropriate relevant market, as per Section 2(r) of the Act which comprises of relevant product market and relevant geographic market, is required to be delineated. The next step is to assess the dominance of Opposite Party in the relevant market so delineated, in terms of the factors enumerated under Section 19(4) of the Act. Once the dominance of Opposite Party is established, the final step is to analyze the allegations pertaining to abuse of dominance in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

  With regard to the relevant geographic market, the Commission has taken into consideration the location of the project, which is in Kannamangala, Taluka-Devanahalli, Bengaluru, Karnataka. This location falls within the Bangalore Metropolitan Region. It may be noted that the conditions of competition within the Bangalore Metropolitan Region on account of level of development, cost of real estate, connectivity to state capital, transport facilities, regulatory authorities, local/municipal laws etc. can be distinguished from other neighbouring areas. In view of the same, the Commission is of the view that the relevant geographic market in the instant matter be considered as ‘Bangalore Metropolitan Region’.

  The Commission is of the prima facie view that the relevant market in the present case would be ‘the market for provision of services for development and sale of apartment to cater to the needs of senior citizens in Bangalore Metropolitan Region.’

  The Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case and the Information filed is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of reliefs as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the same is also rejected.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 933
  

  Contravention of provisions of the Competition Act by chess associations leading to suspension of a member for organizing an unauthorized tournament - primary grievance of the Informant in the present matter is that he was suspended from playing chess, arbitering and organizing tournaments as he organized an allegedly unauthorized friendly match on 19.08.2018 at Kamaraj Somasundari school at Arumuganeri between Tiruchendur and Thoothukudi chess teams - HELD THAT:- The Commission, upon consideration of the Information, notes that the case appears to be in the nature of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Opposite Parties against the Informant in the capacity of his being the Joint Secretary of TDCA and organizing an allegedly unauthorized inter-taluk chess tournament, which was not in accordance with the regulations issued by TDCA and TNSCA. Prima facie, this does not appear to raise any competition concern under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.

  The Commission notes that no case of contravention of provisions of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter is made out and the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, there is no case for grant of interim relief under Section 33 of the Act.

  The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Informant, accordingly.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 932
  

  Seeking interim relief in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 - contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act - HELD THAT:- One of the fundamental principles for granting interim relief is the requirement for a clear nexus between the relief sought and the issues under investigation or in dispute. The Commission in the instant matter has directed investigation on select issues as against varied allegations made by the three Informants. Therefore, the relief sought must correspond to the issues outlined for the investigation. A plain reading of the interim relief prayers when juxtaposed with the issues on which investigation has been directed, reveals that there are various interim relief prayers in respect of which there is no corresponding direction for investigation viz. interim relief prayer relating to collection of data, UI/UX interface, etc. Therefore, no relief can be granted in respect of the same.

  While it is essential to ensure a level playing field and protect competition within the app store market, any measures taken should be proportionate and carefully crafted to minimize unintended consequences and preserve the overall integrity and functionality of the platform ecosystem. Based on the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the Informants have not been able to demonstrate a case in their favour for grant of interim relief for complete restraint on Google from collection of its fee.

  The Commission is further of the view that the Informants have also failed to meet the necessary criteria for grant of interim relief as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Informants have not been able to project any higher level of prima facie case warranting a positive direction as sought for by the Informants at the interim stage. The Informant has also not been able to demonstrate as to how the impugned conduct would result in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through monetary compensation. The Commission is also not persuaded that balance of convenience lies in favour of the Informants.

  The Commission is of the considered opinion that no case whatsoever has been made out by the Informants which warrants grant of interim relief. Resultantly, the applications stand dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 931
  

  Contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Cartelization in a tender process - HELD THAT:- The Commission observes that the documents, prima-facie, do not substantiate the allegations of collusion/cartelisation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as raised by the Informant. The Commission notes that the material furnished by the Informant does not prima-facie, point to bid rigging or collusive bidding in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act by the Opposite Parties.

  The Commission notes that no case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter is made out and the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 930
  

  Rejection of appeal - challenge to acceptance of certain additional documents, together with a rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent - HELD THAT:- Since the proceedings are pending before the NCLAT, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal, at this stage, particularly in the absence of a substantial question of law.

  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 929
  

  Challenge to Impugned Order - directions has been issued to the IBBI to conduct detailed inspection regards the conduct of Liquidator and the records, pertaining to the Corporate Debtor in order to find out the irregularities in the process - cause of action - prior to passing of the order, no opportunity of explaining or defending himself was provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The appellate proceedings under Section 61, of I & B Code cannot be resorted to by the Liquidator, for the purposes of the challenging direction issued to the IBBI to enquire into the conduct of the appellant regards his functioning as a liquidator, because that will be absolutely an in-house proceeding of the registering body of the liquidator to justify as to whether at all, the based on the set of allegations, if proved, he is required to continue as a Liquidator or not. In fact, at this stage, there is nothing apparently adverse against the Appellant, which could call for invocation of an Appellate Jurisdiction particularly when it is only an enquiry and upon which the decision on the same is yet to be taken.

  As of now there is no specific cause of action for the Appellant, to invoke the Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 61, of I & B Code. The Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 928
  

  Challenge to order filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) - HELD THAT:- It is clear that Resolution Plan which was submitted by the Appellant was approved on 07.11.2020 by the CoC. It was the Excise & Taxation Officer, Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority filed its Application before the Adjudicating Authority for accepting its claim which was allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the said Orders was reversed by this Appellate Tribunal, against which, Civil Appeal No. 7514– 7515/2022 was filed. The Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2024 (1) TMI 1382 - SC ORDER] has been brought on record by the Appellant.

  It is clear that under the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Appeal filed by Excise & Taxation Officer, Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority, the process was to be completed within 90 days and for taking steps in pursuance of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.01.2024 [2024 (1) TMI 1382 - SC ORDER], I.A. was filed by the RP. Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned Order has allowed the Application in terms of Prayer (c) but has not issued any direction as to what process, RP has to conduct. The expression used is “conduct the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for M/s. Mastana Foods Private Limited”.

  The ends of justice be served in disposing the Appeal permitting the RP to place an agenda before the CoC with regard to necessary steps which are required to be taken in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 7514–7515/2022. It is the CoC which is in overall control of the entire CIRP Process to take such steps as required by law.

  There are no reason to keep this Appeal pending any further and dispose of the Appeal with liberty to the RP to place appropriate agenda before the CoC, who may take decision and complete the process of CIRP as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 927
  

  Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - financial irregularities - involvement in paper sale transaction without conducting any actual business transactions which resulted in false inflation of financials - Section 45 of PMLA - HELD THAT:- Apart from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the data manifesting relationship of stock, turn over and borrowings by SBFL reflects that SBFL started taking loans from different banks with the help of inflated turn over and fictitious closing stocks.

  The fact that the stock worth Rs.3035.52 crores was declared as obsolete/damaged by pest without suitably accounting for the same, prima facie, reflects mala fide intention. There appears to be sufficient material on record, which reflects that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the process and also appears to be the beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime.

  In the facts and circumstances, there do not appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence as provided under Section 45 of PMLA. Considering the evidence on record, serious nature of economic offence whereby the public funds to the tune of Rs.3035.52 crores have been siphoned off, and the fact that application preferred on behalf of co-accused Tarun Kumar stands rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

  Application is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 926
  

  Valuation of accommodation provided by the appellant to CISF personnel -Short payment of service tax - appellant was availing security service from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for which they were paying service tax on the reverse charge mechanism on security service on net value paid to the CISF - case of the department is that intrinsic value of the house rent in respect of accommodation provided to the CISF personnel should be added in the gross value of security service

  HELD THAT:- Issue is no longer res-integra as relying on Bharat Coking Coal Ltd [2021 (9) TMI 23 - CESTAT KOLKATA] and NTPC LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. E-BHARUCH [2024 (10) TMI 1130 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Hence the intrinsic value of the rent for the accommodation provided by the appellant to the service provider M/s CISF is not includible in the gross value of security service, therefore, demand thereon is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 925
  

  Liability to pay service tax - services provided to a foreign entity - as argued turnover undertaken within the domestic market was less than the threshold limit, therefore, they were not required to pay any Service Tax - Adjudicating authority dropped part of the demand and confirmed the Service Tax demand along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- As in case of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’/’Business Support Services’ they would fall under the category of 3(1)(iii). As per the provisions under Rule 3(1)(iii)of the Export of Services Rules 2005, so long as the services are provided to an entity situated abroad, the same would be exempted from payment of Excise Duty, provided the consideration is received in convertible foreign exchange. The clarification given by the Board Circular echoes the same view.

  In the present case, both the facts as to whether the service has been rendered to a foreign entity or not and as to whether the appellant has received the proceeds in convertible foreign exchange or not, are not under dispute. Therefore, we find force in the Appellant’s arguments that no Service Tax is required to be paid. Accordingly, we set aside the confirmed demand given the Table A above.

  Demand in respect of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’ - As observed Appellant’s turnover during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 was much below the threshold limit. Hence no Service Tax is required to be paid by them for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. In respect of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services’ taken up during the period 2012-13, the Appellant is required to pay the Service Tax. It is found from the records that the Appellant has already paid Rs.1,44,381/- along with interest of Rs.18,172/- on 26.08.2013, which is more than the Service Tax payable if the threshold exemption of Rs.10,00,000 is considered for the period 2012-13. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant has already paid Service Tax where it is payable. Accordingly, we set aside the confirmed demand of Rs.2,75,420/- on merits.

  Invoking extended period of limitation - We find that the Appellant has declared of their foreign exchange earnings in the Balance Sheet. They are also assessed under Service Tax registration and have been filing ST-3 Returns. The Department has not made out any specific case of suppression on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, the confirmed demand in respect of the extended period is set aside on account of time bar also.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 924
  

  Valuation of taxable services for charging service tax - Benefit of partial reverse charge and cum-tax value - Eligibility for threshold exemption - HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the sub section (2) & (3) it is evident that gross amount received for the taxable service by the service provider is inclusive of the service tax payable. Emphasis is on the phrase “payable” used in the sub section (2). The use of word “payable” raises the presumption in the favour of appellant. No agreement has been relied upon in the present case the demand has been made on the basis of the third party information received from the income tax department

  As demand need to be recomputed by treating the gross amount received by the appellant as inclusive of service tax payable in terms of Section 67 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994.

  As regards the impugned order whereby the benefit on threshold exemption has been sought to be denied. We do not find anything on record to show that the said exemption under Notification No.33/2012 was available to the Appellant.

  Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the taxable value should be computed treating the amounts received from the service recipient to be cum-tax price as per the Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Original Authority should re-compute the demand after allowing the said benefit.

  ---

• 2024 (11) TMI 923
  

  Dismissal of appeal as time barred - Time limitation for filing appeal during the Covid 19 outbreak - Non depicting correct value of the services provided in their ST-3 returns filed - information received from Income Tax Department - HELD THAT:- The appeal has been filed before the first Appellate Authority beyond the period of limitation as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 where the period of limitation have been stated as Ninety days from 01.03.2022 the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak.

  In the said decision taking note of the pandemic conditions, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that for period of pandemic, the limitation filed for filing the appeal shall be 90 days from 01.03.2022.

  As this decision was made in exceptional circumstances, it was setting the period of limitation in absolute terms without any power to the authorities to further condone the delay. Or more appropriately said the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay in filing the appeals during the period of pandemic by setting the time limit for filing the appeals within 90 days from the 01.03.2022.

  Thus the impugned order rightly observed that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the prescribed period of limitation and he was not having the powers to condone the delay as per the order of Hon’ble Apex Court prescribing the period of limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022.

  As observed that the total amount of disputed service tax in the present appeal is only Rs.1,41,610/-. In terms of second proviso to Section 35B(1) as the amount involved is less than Rs.2 lakhs, thus find that this appeal need not be admitted for consideration as no substantial question of law is involved in relation to rate of duty etc., is involved.

  ---

1 ....313233343536373839........ 21021