Turnover Exceeds ₹ 10 Lakhs Limit; CESTAT Dismisses Jal Mahal Resort’s Appeal for Refund of Service Tax
“The term turnover is not restricted to mean turnover of only taxable service.”
“The term turnover is not restricted to mean turnover of only taxable service.”
“The term ‘hotel’ has not been defined in the Finance Act, 1994. In the trade parlance, hotels providing additional facilities such as restaurants, banquet hall, conference hall, bar and health club are recognized as ‘Full-Service Hotel’ – which is the opposite of a ‘Limited-Service Hotel’ or a ‘Budget-Friendly Hotel’, with bare or limited facilities.”
Electronic record, in the form of the DVD could not be treated as admissible evidence, in the absence of any verification as to its genuineness, veracity or reliability from the original electronic device by/from which these are created, for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114-AA, Customs Act, 1962.
“During this long period of silence, the petitioner/assessee was entitled to proceed on the reasonable belief that the matter had attained finality and reopening it after nearly a decade frustrates legitimate expectations.”
“The place of supply of service being the location of the service recipient, which is outside India, no service tax is leviable”
When interpreting a tariff heading involved in a classification dispute, the tribunal or court may need to invoke and rely on the common or trade parlance test to understand the meaning and scope of the terms used in that tariff heading.
CESTAT further held that amount deposited by assessee during investigation could not be retained after demand of excise was set aside.
The Tribunal stated that simply failing to disclose facts is not enough to extend the limitation period. Suppression must be deliberate and intended to evade duty and since no such intent is shown in the present case, the extended period cannot apply.
“Use of public does not necessarily mean by individual public but also includes use by Public Sector Undertaking/ Corporations”
Explore the key legal developments of November 2025, featuring CCI’s power to examine patented product disputes, dead worm found in Veg Biryani, deletion of disallowance against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, grieving father bribing ambulance, woman’s death at Jammu-based Super Specialty Hospital and Rajasthan bus fire tragedy.
Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 takes care of the cases where the service provider receives any part of a consideration in non-monetary form or by way of reimbursement and that such item does not figure in the invoices raised, thereby resulting in the real value of taxable service.
Intellectual property not registered in India do not constitute ‘intellectual property rights’ within the meaning of Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the related services are not ‘intellectual property services’ within the meaning of Section 65 (55b) of the Finance Act, 1954.
“Consideration out of surrender of tenancy right on account of immovable property cannot be considered as service as per definition under Section 65-B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and no service tax is payable.”
The appellant was not registered with Gujarat Pollution Control Board for processing goods like Lead Acid Batteries and so they were clearing these goods to their buyers who had license from Pollution Control Board to process old/used Lead Acid Batteries for extraction of lead scrap.
“Mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service.”
A settlement of dispute is clearly not an agreement to tolerate any act or situation. It is beyond the scope of Section 66-E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus not a ‘declared service’.
“SKY Lark Education Welfare Society is imparting education to students of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, enrolled under the distant learning programme, as per its curriculum and it is duly recognized under the laws of the Uttar Pradesh Government/UGC.”
“If the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, no drawback shall be allowed.”
The Adjudication Authority stated that the appellant’s activity of receiving income from transferring temporarily or permitting the use of the right vested in the film produced by them to their clients fell under the definition of copyright service under Section 65(105)(zzzt) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summons and letters were issued to the appellant demanding service tax for the period from 01-07-2012 to 16-02-2014. Furthermore, a show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 2,07,29,576 along with interest for services during the afore-stated period was also issued.