9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Petitioner. Shri B. Vijay Karthikeyan, SSC (C E), for the Respondent. [Order (Common)] . - Both the Writ Petitions were filed by the Society challenging vires of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as the show-cause notice issued pursuant to the said provision. Pending writ petition, this Court did not grant any Stay. 2. On notice from this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 351 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8A, directed the authorities to abide the terms of the Circular for all future assessment. In paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the Circular, it was directed as follows :- 3. In view of the above the accepted position is that, (i) in case of taxable service provided by a non-resident, not having office/establishment in India, and received in India, the service tax liability arises w.e.f. 1-1-2005 on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces received in India, when provided by a non-resident. One such case is M/s. Unitech v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2009 (15) S.T.R. 385 (Del.)], wherein Hon ble High Court of Delhi, applying the ratio of M/s. INSA case has held that service tax liability on the architectural service provided by a non-resident to M/s. Unitech in India would arise w.e.f. 18-4-2006. This order has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived outside India would follow the ratio in the aforementioned case of M/s. INSA v. UOI. 5. Accordingly, it may be critically examined in pending disputes as to whether the service was received in India or-outside India and appropriate action may please be taken for resolution of such disputes. 4. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 2009 (13) S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
