Stay updated
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Light Roofing Limited held that purchase tax under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, does not arise on the purchaser merely because the vendor did not pay the tax, when the transaction is otherwise one in which tax is actually payable by the vendor under the Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airports Authority of India held that export cargo handling services provided by the Airports Authority of India are taxable under Section 65(105)(zzm) read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, regardless of the exclusion available under Section 65(23).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Altaf husen Mayuddin Khatri held that financial hardship cannot be a ground to waive or reduce the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Sections 35B and 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Service Tax-III, Mumbai held that the services provided by the Respondents [Assessees (Taxpayers)] were rightly held to be exported outside India and hence not liable to service tax under the Export of Service Rules, 2005, as the twin conditions of recipient location outside India and receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange were satisfied.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise, Jaipur-I[Final Order No. 50957–50958/2025, dated July 02, 2025] held that incentives/ discounts received by car dealers from manufacturers are not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service, being transactions on a principal-to-principal basis.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Shri Vardhman Milk Dairy Pvt. Ltd. held that the activity of chilling, pasteurisation, standardisation and pouch packing of milk amounts to ‘manufacture’ under Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and therefore cannot be taxed as Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. remands matter where Commissioner erroneously applied Safari Retreats ratio under the CGST Act, without examining pari materia status of provisions under the Service tax provisions.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards (P.) Ltd. directed the Assessee to pay balance amount for the past period in 12 monthly installments from August 01, 2024 to July 01, 2025, considering the accumulated losses and partial payment is already made, where the Assessee failed to discharge the liability as per law under Section 142 of the CGST Act. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of.
Blessed, that the recent ruling by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED ruled on 03.09.2024 aligns closely with the views I expressed in my article long ago.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court, Ernakulam in the case of State of Kerala held that charges received by the taxpayer for services at the Ayurveda Centre, Beauty Parlor, and Convention Centre within the hotel attract luxury tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976 (“the KLT Act”) because the services were not being rendered directly by the taxpayer, a third party was providing services to the customers in the premises of the Taxpayer.