23 October 2024
Read More3 October 2024
Read More26 September 2024
Read MoreWe are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
Read MoreWe started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
Read MoreWe and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
1 May 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has set aside the order which had disallowed the assessee from being covered under the scope of Section 66D(j) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Negative List – Admission to entertainment events or access to amusement facilities), as the assessee provided services other than bowling alley activity also at the centre.
Holding that the provision of access to a bowling alley would be covered under the Negative List, the Tribunal observed that the definition of ‘amusement facility’ does not disqualify a facility from being covered under its scope only because services other than fun or recreation are provided in any part or place of such facility.
According to the Tribunal, the definition only excludes other places from scope of amusement facility, meaning that the charges for access to such places would be taxable. The Tribunal in this regard noted that the assessee had earmarked places for fun and recreation where no other services were provided.
Similarly, the Department’s contention that the amount charged for ‘playing bowling’ would not be covered in the Negative List, was also rejected by the Tribunal, while it observed that in a bowling arcade amount was charged for entering the bowling premises and once the entry was paid, the customer was free to bowl in the available alley.
It was also noted that the assessee had not collected charges for ‘playing bowling alley’, and that ‘access to’ an amusement facility would also mean the permission to use such facility. The period involved in Smaaash Leisure Ltd. v. Commissioner was from 1 July 2012 to 31 January 2017.
Assessee in this case was represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan.