Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellant to overseas universities/colleges amounted to 'Export of Service' and not 'intermediary service'. It observed that the appellant was not an agent of the foreign universities as per the agreements. All conditions u/r 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 were satisfied. The amount was received from foreign universities in convertible foreign exchange, not from Indian students. Indian students were not the service recipients. The place of provision was wrongly held to be in the taxable territory (India). The services fell u/r 3 of Place of Provision Rules, 2012, with the service recipient (foreign universities) located outside the taxable territory. Invoking Rule 9 of Place of Provision Rules was incorrect. The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on foreign consultancy fees. The show cause notice was barred by limitation as there was no evasion of tax. The order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that the services rendered by the appellant to overseas universities/colleges amounted to 'Export of Service' and not 'intermediary service'. It observed that the appellant was not an agent of the foreign universities as per the agreements. All conditions u/r 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 were satisfied. The amount was received from foreign universities in convertible foreign exchange, not from Indian students. Indian students were not the service recipients. The place of provision was wrongly held to be in the taxable territory (India). The services fell u/r 3 of Place of Provision Rules, 2012, with the service recipient (foreign universities) located outside the taxable territory. Invoking Rule 9 of Place of Provision Rules was incorrect. The appellant was not liable to pay service tax on foreign consultancy fees. The show cause notice was barred by limitation as there was no evasion of tax. The order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
