Vijay Sharma & Co & Others Vs. CCE, Chandigarh
Service Tax: Stock Broker Services: Remand: If the main stock broker is subjected to levy of service tax on the self same taxable service provided by sub-broker to the stock broker and the sub-broker has paid service tax on such service, the stock broker shall be entitled to the credit of service tax. In all the three references, it would be proper to send the matter back to the original authority without being sent to the concerned Benches, to verify as to whether the stock broker have paid service tax on behalf of the sub-brokers and if so, reduce the demand on sub-broker to that extent and pass fresh orders, granting fair opportunity of hearing to the sub-brokers. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
ASE Capital Market Ltd Vs. CST Ahmedabad
Service Tax: Stock Broker Services: NSE and BSE transaction charges paid to SEBI : Pre-deposit: Such charges are not liable to service tax prior to May 2008, when the same were specifically included in the services held liable to service tax. Inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order, the impugned order is set aside and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit, without insisting upon any pre-deposit
Rajvi Stock Broking Limited. VS. Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad
Service Tax: Stockbrokers Service: NSE transaction charges made to be liable to service tax from May 2008: Pre-deposit: Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits but has dismissed the appeal for non compliance with the stay order passed by him. The impugned order set aside and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits, without insisting on pre-deposit
Unique Investment Centre Vs. CCE, Chandigarh
Sub-broker: Even though there is no privity of contract between sub-broker and the investor, and the sub-broker is not directly engaged in the business of sale or purchase of securities on behalf of the investor, if he is a registered sub-broker, he would be liable to pay Service Tax on the amount received by him as commission or otherwise from the stock-broker under the agreement with him.
Prabhat Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur - I
Stay: Intellectual Property Service: It is anomalous on the part of the Department to treat the character of the part of the services rendered/received by the appellants differently for the post and pre 10-9-2004 periods, when the fact is that the Technical Collaboration Agreement dated 17-10-1998 has not undergone any change and remains unaltered during these periods. Principles of Natural Justice violated while calculating the service tax liability. Prima facie strong case made out.