CBEC vide Notification 17/2014 dated 20/08/2014 had inserted clause (zfa) in paragraph 2 of Notification 25/2012 making pilgrimage to Haj and Mansarovar exempt from service tax. However since the said exemption was effective from 20/08/2014, by the following notification Government has exempted such pilgrimage undertaken between 1st July 2012 to 19/08/2014 also from the service tax liability by making amendment to Mega Exemption.
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise and Customs
Notification No.25/2016-Service Tax
New Delhi, the 17th May, 2016
27 Vaisakha 1938 Saka
G.S.R. (E).- Whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that in the period commencing on and from the 1st day of July, 2012 and ending with the 19th day of August, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the said period) according to a practice that was generally prevalent , there was non levy of service tax on the services provided by the specified organisations as defined in clause (zfa) of paragraph 2 of the notification no. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary vide number G.S.R 467 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012, in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, under bilateral arrangement and these services were liable to service tax, which was not being paid according to the said practice.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, on the services provided by the said specified organisations in respect of a religious pilgrimage facilitated by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India, under bilateral arrangement, in the said period, but for the said practice, shall not be required to be paid.
(Rajeev Yadav)
Director to the Government of India
[ F No. 137/16/2015-Service-Tax ]
Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…
High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…
Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…