w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000GOI107739

Company & Directors' Information:- B S AND SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92419MH1946PTC004912

Company & Directors' Information:- NIGAM & NIGAM PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U35921WB1987PTC042595

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

    ST/230/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 79/2009 dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai) and Final Order No. 40114/2018

    Decided On, 16 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: S. Janakiraman, Advocate And For Respondents: S. Govindarajan, AC (AR)



Judgment Text


1. Brief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in providing telephone services to subscribers are registered with the Service Tax Department. The officers attached to the internal audit of the Service Tax Commissionerate conducted audit of accounts for the month of April 2007 and noticed certain irregular availment of credit and other irregularities for which show cause notice was issued to the appellant. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalties, against which the appellant have filed the present appeal.

2.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. counsel Sh. S. Janakiraman submitted that there are five issues in the present appeal. The first issue is that the appellant had paid an excess amount of Rs. 47,62,715/- as service tax in March 2007 and hence they adjusted the said amount towards service tax liability payable for April 2007. The department was of the view that no such adjustment is provided as per law. Therefore the demand has been raised alleging short-payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 47,62,715/-. He submitted that the issue whether appellants are eligible to adjust the excess payment of service tax towards the liability of the subsequent month was considered by the Tribunal in various decisions which are as under:-

(a) General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh : 2014 (36) STR 1084 (Tri. Del.)

(b) Plantech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune : 2016 (41) STR 850 (Tri. Mumbai) That according to sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, the assessee having centralized registration can adjust excess amount paid during the month towards the service tax liability of the succeeding month without any monetary limit. In the case of an assessee who do not have centralized registration, the monetary limit for such adjustment of service tax is Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal in the above cases has observed that refusing adjustment against tax liability during other months amount to collection of tax without authority of law which is contrary to Article 256 of Constitution of India. That there is no condition in Rule 6(4A) r/w Rule 6(4B) requiring the assessee to opt for centralized registration to avail the adjustment facility.

2.2 The second issue is with regard to the non-payment of service tax under the category of sponsorship service. He submitted that the appellants have donated some amount as charity but the same was shown in the books as sponsorship services. He submitted that the appellant is not contesting the demand on this issue.

2.3 The third issue is on irregular availment of CENVAT credit of input services. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit on service tax paid by Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC), Chennai on advertisement display on busses. The advertisement was made on the buses on an agreement entered into with them by MTC and they availed CENVAT credit on the basis of the rate quoted in the agreement. The demand has been raised for the reason that the invoice did not show the element of tax paid. That the appellants have actually back worked quantum of service tax basing upon rate quoted in the agreement. That therefore credit has to be allowed.

2.4 The fourth issue is with regard to the disallowance of CENVAT credit of service tax availed on rent-a-cab service for the period October 2007 to December 2007. During the relevant period, the said services were eligible input services and therefore disallowance of credit is unjustified.

2.5 The fifth issue is with regard to wrong availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods. It was noticed that appellant had imported certain capital goods during the period January 2007 and availed credit on the entire credit amount of CVD in the same financial year instead of availing 50% of the credit in the first financial year and the balance credit in the subsequent years. The Ld. counsel submitted that this issue is also not contested by the appellant.

2.6 The Ld. counsel has contested the penalties imposed. He submitted that being a public sector undertaking, the credit was availed on the bona fide belief that the same is eligible. That in the cases of credit availed on capital goods, the same was only procedural infraction and the appellant would be eligible for credit in the subsequent year. He requested that the penalties may be set aside.

3. The Ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The appellant is not contesting the demand of service tax under the category of sponsorship services and also the disallowance of credit availed on capital goods. The demand on said issues are upheld.

5.1 The first issue for consideration is whether the appellant can be allowed to adjust the excess paid service tax to the liability payable for the subsequent months. The issue stands covered by the decision relied by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal in the case of General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (supra) has discussed the issue in detail and observed as under:-

7.1 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 prescribes the manner of payment of service tax, which according to this sub-rule is to be paid with the banks notified by the C.B.E. & C. for this purpose in TR-6 form or, in any other manner as prescribed by the C.B.E. & C. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 covers a situation where an assessee had received payment for certain services to be provided and had paid the service tax on it, but for some reasons, he could not provide the services wholly or partly and according to this rule, the assessee can adjust the excess payment of service tax calculated on pro rata basis against his service tax liability for subsequent period if he has refunded the value of taxable service along with service tax to the person from whom it was received. Thus, the sub-rule (3) provides for limited facility of adjustment in the cases where the amount has already been received by an assessee for the service to be provided and tax leviable thereon had been paid, but subsequently, due to some reasons, the service was not provided either in full or in part. Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 6 provides for provisional assessment, in the case where the assessee for any reason is unable to correctly estimate on the date of deposit, the actual amount payable for a particular month or a quarter, as the case may be, and according to this rule, he may request the jurisdictional Asstt./Dy. Commissioner for payment of service tax on provisional basis. Sub-rule (4A) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), where the assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government any amount in excess of the amount liable to be paid towards the service tax liability in the month/quarter, as the case may be, the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability in subsequent month/quarter and sub-rule (4B) lays down the conditions for such adjustment. The main condition is that the excess payment is not on account of any reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, valuation or applicability of any exemption notification. The other conditions are that an assessee with centralized registration under Rule 4(2) can adjust excess payment in one month against this tax liability in other months without any limit, for other assessee, there is a monetary limit of Rs. one lakh for such adjustment. In our view harmonious construction of Rules 6(4), 6(4A) and 6(4B) would be that Rule 6(4) applies to a case where due to reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, valuation or applicability of exemption notification, the assessee is unable to correctly determine his service tax liability for a particular month/period and Rule 6(4A) read with Rule 6(4B) would apply when tax liability cannot be determined for a particular month due to other reasons. Thus sub-rule (4A) read with Rule (4B) would apply to a situation where an assessee on account of his inability to correctly determine the amount received during a particular month for the service provided, has paid service tax on the basis of his estimation and subsequently, when the exact amount received during the month, has been determined, the amount of service tax paid on the estimation basis is found to be in excess of his actual tax liability. In fact, in such a situation the excess amount paid by him is like advance payment of service tax during the month in excess of the actual service tax liability and which can always be adjusted against his service tax liability for other months as there is no unjust enrichment angle involved. For example, if against actual payments of Rs. 4 crore received by an assessee in a particular month against services provided, on which his service liability @ 10% adv. is Rs. 40 lakhs, he has paid tax of Rs. 50 lakhs on the basis of his estimated receipt of rupees five crores during the month, the excess tax payment of Rs. 10 lakh paid is like an advance payment of tax whose incidence has not been passed on to his customers. In fact, w.e.f. 1-3-2008, sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 has been introduced by Notification No. 4/2008-S.T. , dated 1-3-2008 which also provides that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, every person liable to pay service tax may, on his own, pay an amount as service tax in advance to the credit of Central Government and adjust the amount so paid against service tax liability, which he is liable to pay in subsequent period, subject to the condition that he intimates the details of the amount paid in advance to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The excess payment referred to in sub-rule (4A), read with sub-rule (4B), is like advance payment under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6. There is no condition in Rule 6(4A) read with Rule 6(4B) providing that for availing of the adjustment facility, the assessee must have opted for centralized registration under Rule 4(2). Moreover, when an assessee during certain months, for reasons other than interpretation of law, taxability, classification, valuation or applicability of exemption, has paid service tax in excess of his actual tax liability, the Government cannot retain the excess tax paid by the assessee by refusing its adjustment against his tax liability during other months and refusing adjustment of such excess tax payment during a month against tax liability during other months and appropriation and retention of the same would amount to collection of tax without the authority of law which is contrary for the provisions of Art. 265 of the Constitution of India. As held by the Apex Court in case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai reported in : 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) (paras 26 to 29) whenever there is conflict between a norm in a higher layer in the hierarchy of the laws in the legal system of the country and a norm in a lower layer in the hierarchy, the norm in the higher layer in the hierarchy will prevail. Therefore, if excess payment of tax in a month is not on account of reasons involving interpretation of law, taxability, classification, valuation or applicability of exemption notification and is purely on account of inability of the assessee to exactly determine the total amount collected during the month against the bills raised as a result of which he had determined his tax liability on estimation basis, the excess amount of tax paid during the month can be adjusted against his tax liability during other months and in this regard, there cannot be any monetary limit.
Following the same, we are of the view that the demand raised on this ground is unsustainable and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.

5.2 The next issue for consideration is the credit availed on the service tax paid on advertisement on MTC buses. The case of the appellant is that though the invoices did not indicate the amount of service tax paid, they have availed credit on the basis of the rate quoted in the agreement. This argument does not find favour with us. As per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, credit can be availed on service tax/duty when the documents evidence the payment of the same. Since the documents on which credit has been availed does not evidence the payment of service tax, we are of the view that the credit availed is incorrect. The demand raised on this issue is sustained.

5.3 An amount of Rs. 84,740/- has been disallowed being the credit taken on service tax paid on rent-a-cab service. The credit has been disallowed stating that rent-a-cab service is not used for providing output service. The appellant has explained that they are providers of telephone services and rent-a-cab service was used for transportation of employees and executives. During the relevant period, prior to 1.4.2011, the definition of input services included the words activity relating to business. Therefore, the definition had wide ambit and had included the services namely rent-a-cab service. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Beekay Engg. & Castings Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 70 (Tri. Del.), the said services have been held to be eligible for credit. From the above discussions and following the decision, we are of the view that the disallowance of credit is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.

5.4 The appellant has availed credit on capital goods imported during the period January 2007. The entire credit was availed by the appellant in the same financial year. According to Rule 4(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit can be availed not exceeding 50% of duty paid on

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

capital goods in the same financial year and the balance amount of CENVAT credit has to be availed in the subsequent year. Therefore, availment of entire credit in the same financial year is irregular. The appellant has not contested the same and therefore the demand of service tax under this category is sustained. 5.5 The Ld. counsel for appellant has strongly argued to set aside the penalties imposed. The appellant is a public sector undertaking. The issue with regard to availment of credit on capital goods as well as credit availed on invoices in which the service tax was not mentioned, can only be considered as procedural infractions. The other is with regard to non-payment of service on sponsorship services. The Ld. counsel has explained that the appellant had not rendered any sponsorship service and they had only extended donations to orphanage and charity purpose and it was wrongly accounted in their books of accounts as sponsorship service. Taking into consideration these aspects, we are of the view that the penalties in regard to these issues are unwarranted and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 6. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of allowing credit in respect of rent-a-cab service and also setting the demand alleging irregular adjustment of excess payment. The other demands are upheld and the penalties on these issues are set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.)
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
06-05-2020 CLP India Private Limited Versus Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
01-05-2020 Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Versus Space Tech Equipments & Structurals Private Limited High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 Nagar Nigam & Another Versus District Consumer Forum I, Lucknow & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
26-02-2020 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Versus M/s P.M. Electronics Ltd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-02-2020 Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited & Another Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
20-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi & Another Versus Shyamal Kanti Deb Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-02-2020 Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Another Versus Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 Vidya Devarajan & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Versus M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Limited (100 Percent Eou) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 M/s. Fine Automotive & Industrial Radiators Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Versus Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by its Principal General Manager, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 A. Babu Prasanth V/S The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 BVSR-KVR (Joint Ventures) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Narakal, Represented by Its Divisional Engineer (Internal) Parur, P. Amanulla Versus The Secretary, Narakal Grama Panchayat & Another High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 Ambalal V. Patel Versus Central Medical Service Society Vishwa Yuva Kendra & Others Competition Commission of India
10-02-2020 Mili Nigam Versus Kalanidhi Naithani, S S P Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
05-02-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 M/s. Bright Marketing Company, Tirupur Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles rep. by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan & Others Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Krantikumar Kishanrao Kaulwar & Another Versus Maharashtra Public Service Commission, MPSC & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-01-2020 M/s. Sheetla Granite Daharra Kabrai Versus Dakshinanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 The Managing Committee, The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Idukki, Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Idukki & Another High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 Surekha Rana Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
21-01-2020 Chanabasappa Versus Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Versus GSCO Infrastructure (P) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-01-2020 Shri Gas Service Versus United India Insurance Co. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2020 Andoorkonam Service Co-Operative Bank, Represented by Its Secretary- In-Charge, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Income Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-01-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus K.P. Pradeepan & Others High Court of Kerala
14-01-2020 Managing Director & Directors Sai Service Private Limited(Formerly Sai Service Station Pvt. Ltd.) & Another Versus Dr. Sadanand Bhojraj Adhyanthaya & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-01-2020 Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Others Versus Puneet Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
10-01-2020 Neelam Nigam Versus State of U.P. Thru Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-01-2020 M/s. Kotec Automative Services India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Chung Lee Yoon, Sriperumbudur Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-01-2020 The Secretary, Udumbanchola Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Idukki Versus S. Rani Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-01-2020 Commissioner of Service Tax V/S Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-01-2020 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, District-Sri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan Versus Ravi Kant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 Kanchan India Limited and Others V/S Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax & Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-01-2020 3G Consultants V/S The Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
08-01-2020 Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus The Income Tax Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Navbharat Fuse Co. Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-01-2020 The General Manager, Aleppy Parcel Service, Alappuzha Versus Anil Kumar V., Managing Partner, Wetex Garments, Poovattuparamba, Kozhikode Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-01-2020 Andhra Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 Railway Officers Club, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 Babita Das Konar Versus M/s. Solace Management Consultancy Service(P) Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-01-2020 Gemini Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
11-12-2019 Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Versus Kota Lingeswara Rao & Others Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2019 Keecheri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ernakulam Distric, Represented by Its Secretary & Another Versus M.M. Ramesh & Others High Court of Kerala
04-12-2019 Hindustan Zinc Limited (H.Z.L.) Versus Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 The Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary A. Anil Kumar & Others Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Chairman & Others High Court of Kerala
28-11-2019 The Assam Public Service Commission & Others Versus Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Others Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Versus Northern Coal Field Limited Supreme Court of India
26-11-2019 Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary Versus C.A. Soumya & Others High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 Thankey Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by its Secretary, Alappuzha Versus The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
25-11-2019 Lupin Limited V/S Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
20-11-2019 R. Karunakaran Versus Rangasamy Motor Service, Proprietor T. Gunasundari, Chetpattu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-11-2019 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Secretary, Kerala & Others Versus P. Swapna & Another High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 Mathew K. Jacob Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to The Government, Department of Financial Service (Banking Division), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
07-11-2019 Malay Majumder, West Tripura Versus The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chairman & Managing Director, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
07-11-2019 K. Vasudevan Versus Director of Medical & Rural Service, Tamil Nadu Government & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 G. Balaji & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Fracier Bridge Road, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-10-2019 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Another Versus Shikun Ram Firuda & Another Supreme Court of India
23-10-2019 Kairali Jewelery, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Nadarsha Versus The Assistant Commissioner-Iii, Special Circle, State Goods & Service Tax Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
22-10-2019 Union Public Service Commission Versus R.A. Khan & Others High Court of Delhi
22-10-2019 R. Devasenathipathi Versus 1.Joint Director of Medical and Rural Service, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-10-2019 Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Secretary & Others Versus Makrand Subhash Dagadkhair & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2019 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Canara Bank & Others Supreme Court of India
16-10-2019 M/s. DLF Southern Towns Private Limited, Kakkanad, Represented by Its Assistant General Manager S. Subramanian & Another Versus The State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch), O/O. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Intelligence), Department of State Goods & Service Tax, Edappally, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
15-10-2019 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Versus Antony Cleetus, Deputy Office Superintendent, Retired From Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Deptt, Cochin High Court of Kerala
01-10-2019 Arjunsinh Rameshbhai Solanki Versus The Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
25-09-2019 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus S. Satheesh & Others High Court of Kerala
24-09-2019 The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Thrissur & Another Versus Peringandoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its President, Mulakkunathukavu, Thrissur High Court of Kerala
13-09-2019 Babu Radhakrishnan Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2019 Esquire Express & Courier Service & Others Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Tripura
11-09-2019 Dr. K.T. Mate, Manipur & Others Versus The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Nagaland & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
09-09-2019 Karnataka Public Service Commission Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
06-09-2019 M/s. Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, N. Soundrapandian Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai II Commissionerate, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Another Versus Raj Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-09-2019 S. Sreenivasababu Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-09-2019 A. Anilkumar, Superintendent of Police (Retired from State Service), Internal Security Investigation Team Kerala, Tripunithura Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
03-09-2019 M/s. Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Supreme Court of India
03-09-2019 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus S.V. Silbert Jose & Others High Court of Kerala
28-08-2019 D. Anjali Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep by the Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box