The purpose of this website is to facilitate Business to Business electronic commerce, i.e. selling products or services between businesses through the internet via an online sales portal.
The information contained in this website is for B2B e-commerce purposes only. The information is provided by [GST Online],a property of Wolters Kluwer (India) Pvt. Ltd. (WKIPL).While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness,accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
In no event will we be liable forany loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
1. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are providing coaching and training services to the students of Alagappa University, Karaikudi. They collected fees from the students for such coaching. Department was of the view that the said services would fall under "Commercial Training Coaching Services" under Section 65(26) and 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice was issued raising the demand of service tax, interest and for
1. The brief facts of the case are that appellants are providing coaching and training services to the students of Alagappa University, Karaikudi and Periyar University. They collected fees from the students for such coaching. Department was of the view that the said services would fall under "Commercial Training Coaching Services" under Section 65(26) of Chapter V the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notices were issued raising the demand of servic
1. This appeal is filed against order is appeal No VAD-EXCUS-004-APP-118-17-18 dated 30.05.2017. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claim of service tax paid on CHA services used for export of the goods. Appellant during the period August 2013 to March 2015 had exported the final products for which they had availed the services of CHA. They filed
1. These four appeals are by the Revenue against a common impugned order dated 29.11.2013 of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee are engaged in business of financial as well as operating lease of vehicles. They were registered with the Service Tax Department and were paying service tax under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services (BOFS) in terms of Section 65(12) read w
1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding service tax along with interest and imposing penalty under the category of Construction of Residential and Commercial complex and Works Contract services. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant has provided services to Chandigarh Housing Board for construction of Residential Complexes under a composite Works Contract. On the basis of enquiry, the show cause notice was issued
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-143/2016-17 dated 06.06.2017. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. This matter was listed on 09.10.2017 and after hearing submission made by both the sides, the bench pronounced an order recording appeal allowed on limitation and reasons to follow. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for dictation the bench felt some error has arisen in understanding th
1. The appellant is a company located in Noida and registered with service tax department under the category of business auxiliary service and information technology and software service. 2. They entered into a contract with M/s.NCS(NCS Pearson, USA), who are engaged in the business of providing electronic tests delivery services to certain organizations who have established given lavels of education, training and and/or testing experience nece99
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2011 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in clearing and forwarding work for M/s.Grasim Industries in terms of the agreement with them. The said agreement covers various responsibilities of the appellant, which included facilities for storage, transport and dispatch of cement to various customers, etc. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to
1. The only point of dispute in the present case is with reference to service tax liability of the appellant under the category of Real Estate Agent Service in terms of Section 65(105)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the dispute covered the period 1.4.2009 to 30.09.2009 and the appellant was put to service tax liability of Rs.9,57,843/-. The service tax was on the charges collected for cha
1. These two appeals are on the same dispute with reference to Service Tax liability of the appellant under the category of Goods Transport Agency Service. The appellants are a cooperative society where 90 per cent of the stake is with Government of Chhattisgarh. They are engaged in procuring food grains like paddy etc in terms of the policy of the Government and as per the declared Minimum Support Price. 2. The paddy and other food grains procur
1. All the three appeals are on identical dispute and are accordingly taken up together. 2. The appellant is the owner of a shopping mall and are registered with the Service Tax department and discharging Service Tax in various categories. The dispute in the present appeal is with reference to two issues. a. The liability of the appellant to pay Service Tax under the category of Renting to Immovable Property Service with reference to parking fees
Tax demand—Tax liability—Tax Assessee was civil constructor engaged in industrial construction such as industrial parks, other infrastructure work, airport runways etc. and were registered with Service Tax Department—Department was of view that assessee was not discharging service tax liability and therefore show cause notice was issued demanding service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalty—After due proce
1. The appellants are engaged in leather manufacturing, trading and agency. They are registered with the Service Tax Department for providing Business Auxiliary Services. M/s.Wega International Ltd, Hongkong, a foreign commission agent appointed leather exporters/manufacturers to place orders for them. The appellants were appointed to co-ordinate and expedite the shipments keeping a close liaison with the shippers. The remuneration was fixed as 1
1. Brief facts are that appellants were awarded the contract for doing the maintenance and repair works for the Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore. The work order involved erection of poles, fixing of light fittings, conversion of tube light to sodium vapour lamp, attending to complaints received from public, employ persons to switch on/off street lights, replace defective fittings etc. The service of maintenance and repair was brought within tax
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had provided renting of immovable property services and had not paid the applicable service tax. They were into the business of renting services since 2007 and they obtained registr
1. On matter being called, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant neither is there any adjournment request. Accordingly, we have heard learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order. 2. As per the facts on record, the appellant is registered for single premises to provide services under the category of Telephone Services. They are availing the facility of Cenvat credit under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 200
Repairs and Maintenance service—Demand of duty—Denial of cenvat credit—Assessee was manufacturer of various types of electric appliances and they were selling same through their various branches and condition of sale was that, during warranty period, assessee should provide service of Repair and Maintenance free of cost for agreed period— Revenue was of view that free warranty service of Repair and Maintenance was exempted
Tax liability—Tax demand—Assessee were engaged in providing various services during period 01.10.2004 to 28.02.2009—In terms of arrangement with various clients, assessees provided various renovation, restoration, maintenance work with reference to various buildings like hotels, hospitals—Commissioner by impugned order confirmed service tax liability on assessee and also ordered recovery in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credi
Rent-a-cab scheme operator Services—Nature of service—Original authority, after examining terms of agreement, entered into by assessee with some of corporate clients and interpreting legal provisions for service tax came to conclusion that service rendered by assessee to corporate clients could not fall under category of "rent-a-cab-service" in as much as services provided by assessee were in nature of "hire-on-call-service" or "hire-
1. Both the revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal against the same common impugned order. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal record. 3. The only dispute in the present appeal is with reference to valuation of taxable service under the category of Commercial Training and Coaching services rendered by the assessee-appellant. During the course of providing service to the participants the appellants are selling course material