Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
