Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The CESTAT held that the appellant's receipt of access to software tools hosted on an overseas server constitutes an Online Information Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) service, making the appellant liable for service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. However, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation for tax demand invocation was not applicable, as the appellant had duly disclosed the receipt of such services, made payments accordingly, and filed refund claims under the relevant rules. Consequently, the demand for service tax was barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.