Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

about 1 month ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—žš—¼š—¹š—øš—®š˜š—® š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—–š—¼š—®š—¹ š— š—¶š—»š—²š˜€ š—£š—暝—¼š˜ƒš—¶š—±š—²š—»š˜ š—™š˜‚š—»š—± š—”š—±š—ŗš—¶š—»š—¶š˜€š˜š—暝—®š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—² š—–š—µš—®š—暝—“š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Administrative charges collected under statutory provisions do not qualify as 'consideration' for a taxable service, as there is no service provider-service recipient relationship."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Is service tax applicable to the administrative charges collected by CMPFO? š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: Collection of a 3% administrative charge from coal companies for managing a provident fund for workers, under statutory authority.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that administrative charges collected by CMPFO for fund management are statutory and do not qualify as 'consideration' under service tax law. With no service provider-recipient relationship, there is no service tax liability. Consequently, CMPFO is exempt from service tax on these charges, and the appeal was allowed.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dhanbad š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼.75540 of 2015 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 09 June 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling confirms that statutory charges collected for fund management are not liable for service tax, reinforcing the distinction between statutory function and taxable services.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own