Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded from the recipient in India for services received from abroad for the period prior to 18.04.2006, before insertion of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis: Liability of the recipient for services provided by a non-resident from outside India was considered in light of the statutory scheme then in force and the later insertion of Section 66A. The controlling view applied was that offshore services became taxable only from 01.01.2005 in respect of the specific notification-based regime and, in any event, recipient liability for import of services could not be fastened for periods prior to 18.04.2006, when Section 66A was inserted. The demand related to a period preceding that date.
Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable for the period prior to 18.04.2006 and the appeal failed.