Allowed

M/S Greatship(India)Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2015NMA/261/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a stay on the operation of the Appellate Tribunal's Final Order in a service tax appeal involving retrospective levy. The stay is subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the amount in dispute by March 31, 2015.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion made absolute subject to deposit of 50% of the amount in dispute by 31st March 2015.

M/S Greatship(India)Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

901.nms261.15.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 261 OF 2015 IN

¶5

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 20 OF 2015

¶6

M/s. Greatship (India) Ltd. ... Applicant.

¶7

In the matter of M/s. Greatship (India) Ltd. … Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai -I & anr. ... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. V Shridharan, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal, advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. P.S. Jetly a/w. Ms. Suchitra Kamble, advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶10

Mr. J.H. Motwani i/b. Economic Law Practice, advocate respondent No. 2.

¶11

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ DATE : MARCH 24, 2015

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1 The present Notice of Motion has been taken out by the appellant for stay to the operation and effect of the Final Order No.

Talwalkar

1/3

2 901.nms261.15.sxw

A/1520/14/CSTB/C-I dated 29.09.2014 modified vide Misc. Order No. M/2024/14/CSTB/C-I dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶18

2 Heard Shri Shreedharan, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Jetley, Counsel for the Revenue.

¶19

3 We are prima facie of the view that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal. We prima facie find that the services which are the subject matter of the present appeal have been brought into tax net for the first time vide notification is dated 27/2/2010. We therefore, prima facie find that the impugned order, makes notification dated 27/2/2010 retrospectively applicable with effect from 7/7/2009. In that view of the matter, the appellant has good prima facie case. However, at the same time, interest of the Revenue also needs to be protected.

Talwalkar

2/3

3 901.nms261.15.sxw

4 The Notice of Motion is made absolute. However, the same shall be subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit 50% of the amount which is subject matter of this appeal, prior to 31^st March, 2015.

¶24

(A.S. GADKARI, J)

¶25

(B.R.GAVAI,J)

¶26

Talwalkar

¶27

3/3

M/S Greatship(India)Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Greatship(India)Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanzeem Printers Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Commissionarate, Daman Vs Firomenich Aromatics (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Benudhar Samal Vs Union of India and Anr.

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vat, III Mumbai Vs Indo Count Industries Ltd.

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vat, III Mumbai Vs M/S Indo Count Industries Ltd.

The Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Vat, III Mumbai Vs M/S Indo Count Industries Ltd.