This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from February 20 to February 26, 2021.
Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II
The Supreme Court has held that for granting Service Tax exemption based on the nature of agreements, agreements ought to be read as a composite whole. The division bench of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant has held that thedecisions of CESTAT relied upon by the appellant also do not help their submissions as they are fact-specific and based on a reading of the contracts in those cases. In this case, though ostensibly, the agreement contains a provision for payment on the basis of the rates mentioned in Schedule II, the agreement has to be read as a composite whole. On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour. An attempt has been made to camouflage the contract as a contract for job work to avail of the exemption from the payment of service tax. The judgement of the Tribunal does not, in the circumstances, suffer from any error of reasoning.
Punjab National Bank vs Union of India
The Supreme Court two-member bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran observed that the SARFAESI Act will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act and therefore, the dues of the secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department.
M/s Yashi Constructions vs Union of India
The Supreme Court has ruled that, Assessee who wants to avail the benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 must strictly abide its Terms & Conditions. While dismissing the appeal, the two-judge bench comprising of Justice M.R Shah and Justice B.V Nagarathna has observed that, “the High Court has rightly refused to grant relief to the petitioner for extension of the period to make the deposit under the Scheme. It is a settled proposition of law that a person, who wants to avail the benefit of a particular Scheme has to abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme scrupulously. If the time is extended not provided under the Scheme, it will tantamount to modifying the Scheme which is the the prerogative of the Government”.
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Ors.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a financier of a transport vehicle, for which a lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to pay tax under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997 from the date of taking possession of the vehicle. The Apex Court also added that, However, only in a case, which falls under sub-section (2) of Section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 12, the liability to pay the tax shall not arise, otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owner/operator shall continue.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that the exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it is for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, while upholding an order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committees) located in different parts of State of Rajasthan liable to pay service tax under the category of “renting of immovable property service” for the period upto 30.06.2012.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
