<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210009</link>
    <description>The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on &#039;Goods Transport Service by Air&#039; from the appellant for the period April 2006 to June 2008. The lower authorities determined that the service was received from a foreign service provider, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that the service provider was an agent of the foreign service provider, making Section 66(A) of the Finance Act, 1994 inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of discharging tax on the service provider and remanded the matter for further verification of tax payment by the Indian company issuing the invoice. The pre-deposit requirement was waived, and the case was remanded for further adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210009</link>
      <description>The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on &#039;Goods Transport Service by Air&#039; from the appellant for the period April 2006 to June 2008. The lower authorities determined that the service was received from a foreign service provider, rejecting the appellant&#039;s argument that the service provider was an agent of the foreign service provider, making Section 66(A) of the Finance Act, 1994 inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of discharging tax on the service provider and remanded the matter for further verification of tax payment by the Indian company issuing the invoice. The pre-deposit requirement was waived, and the case was remanded for further adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>