Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
