HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vide Writ Petition No. 1364 of 2008, decided on 23/03/2009 IN RE: indian national shipowners assn. VS u.o.i. observed as follows : -

Inroduction of new entry and inclusion of certain services in that entry would presuppose that there was no earlier entry covering the said services.

Scope of the phrase IN RELATION TO is indeed wide but its parameters have to be understood in its context.

That the services rendered by a person must have a direct or a proximate relation to the subject matter of the taxing entry and the context in which the words IN RELATION TO are used has to be borne in mind to judge the extent of the scope of an entry which may be of wide amplitutue.

[for full details of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.comand clikc on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_wp_1364]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS IN RELATION TO, INCLUSION OF SERVCES, NEW ENTRY, SERVICE TAX, TAXING ENTRY

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2009 decided on 27/03/09 in re: RAVI GUPTA vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI held as follows : -

QUOTE: It is true that on merely establishing a prima-facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to request the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum / authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen’s faith in impartiality of public administration, interim relief can be given.

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_ca_1965]

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

Supreme Court judgement

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

 

stay petitions, prima-facie case, interim order of protection, no rule of universal application, factual scenario, public mischief, private injury, impartiality of public administration

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS