https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268170 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant's trading activities with BSNL did not constitute Business Auxiliary Service, emphasizing the principal-to-principal relationship and the absence of service provision. The Tribunal highlighted that demanding service tax from the appellant, after BSNL had already paid tax on the transactions, would result in impermissible double taxation. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order requiring the appellant to pay service tax on the profit margin earned, concluding that the appellant was engaged in trading, not taxable services. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268170 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant's trading activities with BSNL did not constitute Business Auxiliary Service, emphasizing the principal-to-principal relationship and the absence of service provision. The Tribunal highlighted that demanding service tax from the appellant, after BSNL had already paid tax on the transactions, would result in impermissible double taxation. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order requiring the appellant to pay service tax on the profit margin earned, concluding that the appellant was engaged in trading, not taxable services. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268170