Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Service tax liability cannot be imposed twice on the same transaction. The appellant, as a service recipient, was required to pay 75% of the service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for manpower supply agency services. However, the undisputed fact is that the service provider, M/s. Kalpataru Job Management, had already discharged 100% of the applicable service tax, as reflected in their invoice. Demanding service tax from the appellant would amount to recovering the tax twice, which is impermissible. The CESTAT Bangalore Bench in Kerala Ceramics Ltd vs CCE case held that if the transporter has discharged the service tax liability and provided documentary evidence, the same cannot be demanded from the recipient. Since 100% service tax was paid by the service provider, it cannot be recovered from the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Service tax liability cannot be imposed twice on the same transaction. The appellant, as a service recipient, was required to pay 75% of the service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for manpower supply agency services. However, the undisputed fact is that the service provider, M/s. Kalpataru Job Management, had already discharged 100% of the applicable service tax, as reflected in their invoice. Demanding service tax from the appellant would amount to recovering the tax twice, which is impermissible. The CESTAT Bangalore Bench in Kerala Ceramics Ltd vs CCE case held that if the transporter has discharged the service tax liability and provided documentary evidence, the same cannot be demanded from the recipient. Since 100% service tax was paid by the service provider, it cannot be recovered from the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
