Abhishek Raja "Ram"
8 months ago
โขView on X
๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป๐ป๐ฎ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ช๐ผ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐ข ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ต๐ฒ๐น๐ฑ: Service tax exemption under Section 102 requires contracts before 01.03.2015. Appellant's 19.03.2015 contract disqualifies exemption. Appeal dismissed.
๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐: ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐: M/s. P. Natesan & Co. ๐๐๐๐๐ฒ: Refund of service tax denied as exemption under Section 102 requires contracts entered before 01.03.2015; appeal dismissed.
โ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฑ๐ด๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐: The Tribunal held that mere receipt or opening of a tender isn't acceptance; explicit communication is required. Section 102 exempts service tax only for contracts entered before 01.03.2015. As the appellantโs contract was dated 19.03.2015, they were ineligible for exemption, and statutory provisions prevailed over the Head Office's letter.
๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: ๐ง๐ถ๐๐น๐ฒ: M/s. P. Natesan & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ๐ข๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ: 14 December 2022 ๐ This ruling underscores the importance of statutory timelines in claiming service tax exemptions.
Page created with TweetHunter
Write your own