Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
