Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Taxation

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS

Broadcasting activity has at least two distinct aspects: (i) transmission/relaying of signals (a service taxable under the Finance Act, 1994 under Entry 97/List I) and (ii) provision/receipt of entertainment by viewers (a luxury taxable under Entry 62/List II). Both Union (service tax on broadcasting) and State (entertainment tax on entertainment aspect) legislatures have competence to levy their respective taxes because different aspects of the same activity are being taxed; Purvi Communication is not per incuriam and need not be referred to a larger bench.

Source excerpt

  • Entertainment tax
  • Service tax
  • Aspect theory
  • Pith and substance doctrine
  • Legislative competence
  • Entry 62 list ii
Read case analysis
Taxation

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court orders setting aside various Finance Act amendments do not call for interference: the relationships created by the State of Sikkim agreements with the sole distributors/purchasers are principal-to-principal (outright purchase/resale or actual-sold arrangements with return of unsold tickets, guaranteed payments, bank guarantees, independent appointment of stockists and bearing of commercial risks), not principal-agent, and therefore no service is rendered by the respondents as agents to the State; conduct of lotteries is an activity of betting and gam…

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Lotteries
  • Agency
  • Actionable claim
  • Seventh schedule entries
  • Finance act amendments
Read case analysis
Taxation

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

Mobile towers and prefabricated buildings are movable 'goods' (not immovable) under the tests of permanency, intendment, functionality and marketability; they are accessories/components of BTS/antenna (which fall under Chapter 85) and thus qualify as 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii), and since they are used for providing the output mobile telecommunication service they also qualify as 'inputs' under Rule 2(k); therefore service providers are entitled to CENVAT credit on excise duties paid on these items and may use such credit for payment of service tax; the Delhi High Court decision i…

Source excerpt

  • Cenvat credit
  • Service tax
  • Capital goods
  • Inputs
  • Movable versus immovable property
  • Accessory
Read case analysis
Taxation

K. ARUMUGAM versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.

Because lottery tickets are actionable claims (not 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act as incorporated by s.65(50) of the Finance Act), promotion, marketing or sale of such tickets does not fall within clause (19)(i) of s.65; the 2008 Explanation purporting to bring lotteries within clause (19)(ii) could not validly convert the outright purchase and resale activity into a taxable business auxiliary service for the period prior to its omission (01.07.2010). Therefore service tax could not be levied on the appellants' activities under the cited provisions for the relevant period, and the High C…

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Business auxiliary service
  • Lottery
  • Actionable claim
  • Finance act, 1994
  • Sale of goods act, 1930
Read case analysis
Taxation

CENTRAL GST DELHI - III versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

User Development Fee (UDF) levied and collected under Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 is a statutory exaction/cess regulated by law (including the 2011 Rules and conditions imposed by AAI), not a consideration for any service to passengers; therefore it lacks the requisite nexus to a taxable service and is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • User development fee (udf)
  • Airports authority of india act s.22 and s.22a
  • Airports economic regulatory authority (aera) rules 2011
  • Escrow and fund utilization
Read case analysis
Taxation

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX versus M/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD.

The Supreme Court held that imported "Engineering Design & Drawings" tailored for use in manufacturing WTG are leviable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 as "design services" (Section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105)(zzzzd)); the CESTAT's conclusion that the same activity could not be taxed as both goods and services was erroneous because the aspect theory permits different levies on different aspects of a transaction; therefore the CESTAT order setting aside the levy was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to CESTAT to consider two specific grounds raised by the resp…

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Design services
  • Finance act, 1994
  • Reverse charge
  • Aspect theory
  • Sale of goods vs contract for service
Read case analysis
Taxation

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING COMPANY, LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISING CORPORATION) versus COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX, NEW DELHI

The definition in s.65(68) of the Finance Act, 1994 is wide and does not require an employer-employee relationship between the manpower supply agency and the person whose services are provided; therefore services provided by FSE fell within "manpower recruitment or supply agency" and were taxable. The agreements with Zee Telefilms and Trans World International did not attract the definition of "programme producer" under s.65(86b) because the appellant produced the programmes and licensed/sold telecast rights rather than having a programme produced on its behalf. Because the issues turned on i…

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Manpower recruitment or supply agency
  • Programme producer
  • Limitation period
  • Penalty
  • Cbec circular interpretation
Read case analysis
Taxation

M/S. TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS

For the period prior to 1 June 2007 service tax was not leviable under the Finance Act, 1994 on indivisible/composite works contracts; the Finance Act, 2007 (inserting s.65(105)(zzzza)) made the service component of works contracts taxable w.e.f. 1 June 2007; therefore impugned High Court and Tribunal orders and assessment orders imposing service tax on indivisible/composite works contracts for the pre-2007 period were quashed and set aside; the Court declined to revisit or refer the earlier decision in Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. on grounds of sta…

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Works contract
  • Finance act, 1994
  • Finance act, 2007
  • Stare decisis
Read case analysis
Taxation

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR versus M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Even before the 2005 amendment, the term "consulting engineer" in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be read to include a body corporate (company) providing consultancy engineering services; excluding body corporates would create an anomalous two-class situation and lead to absurdity, and therefore the respondent (a body corporate) was liable to pay service tax under Section 66 read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994; the CESTAT order setting aside demand on sole ground of body corporate exclusion was quashed and matter remanded to CESTAT to decide other grounds.

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Definition of consulting engineer
  • Finance act, 1994
  • General clauses act, 1897
Read case analysis
Taxation law

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS PVT. LTD.

Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 is ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 as service tax can only be levied on the value of services actually rendered, not reimbursable expenses or free supplies; rules cannot override statute.

Source excerpt

  • Service tax
  • Valuation
  • Subordinate legislation
  • Ultra vires
  • Reimbursable expenses
  • Interpretation of statutes
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.