Investigation deposits refunded after failed customs demands fall outside the statutory appellate pre-deposit interest regime and may attract compensa...
Resolution plan finality extinguishes unquantified operational-creditor claims and pending proceedings unless the approved plan expressly preserves th...
Stakeholder-list modification permits liquidators to update entries on new information, subject to notifying the Adjudicating Authority within prescri...
The CESTAT held that the appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The CESTAT held that the appellant did not collect any amount representing service tax from sub-agents/customers. The amount recovered was the service tax already paid by the appellant on the commission retained by the sub-agents. No service tax was actually collected payable u/s 73A(2). The revenue wrongly alleged illegal collection of service tax from sub-agents, ignoring that commission was shared with sub-agents, and the tax burden was accordingly shared. Demanding service tax again on the sub-agents' commission portion would amount to double taxation. The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
