Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—²š˜€š˜š—®š˜ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—˜š˜…š—²š—ŗš—½š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—³š—¼š—æ š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ š—½š—æš—¼š˜ƒš—¶š—±š—²š—± š˜š—¼ š—¦š—˜š—­ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Services related to erection, commissioning, and installation consumed wholly within SEZ are exempt from service tax. Appeal allowed."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—”š—½š—½š—²š—¹š—¹š—®š—»š˜: Neo Structo Construction Pvt Ltd š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: The appellant provided services to an SEZ unit, availing exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST. A show-cause notice was issued for demanding service tax, arguing payment first and refund later under Notification No. 9/2009-ST.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that services used and wholly consumed in an SEZ were exempt from service tax under Notification No. 9/2009-ST, later amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST. It also confirmed that under the SEZ Act, supplies to SEZs are not subject to service tax, making the demand unsustainable.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Neo Structo Construction Pvt Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-i š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 07 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling clarifies that services provided to SEZs for use within the zone are exempt from service tax, including those that are amended retroactively.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own