Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

23 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—Ÿš—®š˜†š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—³ š—Øš—»š—±š—²š—暝—“š—暝—¼š˜‚š—»š—± š—–š—®š—Æš—¹š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Laying of underground cables is not subject to service tax as per CBIC Circular No. 123/05/2010-ST. The demand for service tax is not sustainable."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Siddharth Industries š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the appellant is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant was involved in laying underground cables but was denied exemption under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, alleging non-eligibility due to not providing equipment during the installation process.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that laying of underground cables is not liable to service tax, relying on the Rishabh Telelinks case and CBIC Circular No. 123/05/2010-ST. The appellant's activity falls outside the service tax scope. The appeal was allowed, and the demand was set aside.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Siddharth Industries vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼.11718 of 2013 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 20 April 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling reinforces that underground cable laying activities are exempt from service tax as per CBIC guidelines.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own