<?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>2017 (8) TMI 357 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346299</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant, a company owned by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in a case concerning alleged non-payment of Service Tax for utilizing Goods Transport Agency Service. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove the appellant&#039;s receipt of the service as claimed in the show cause notice, citing the absence of required consignment notes. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the importance of meeting evidentiary requirements in tax disputes. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the lack of substantiating evidence presented by the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2018 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 357 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346299</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled in favor of the appellant, a company owned by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in a case concerning alleged non-payment of Service Tax for utilizing Goods Transport Agency Service. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove the appellant&#039;s receipt of the service as claimed in the show cause notice, citing the absence of required consignment notes. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the importance of meeting evidentiary requirements in tax disputes. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the lack of substantiating evidence presented by the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>