https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348184 The case involved a dispute over the demand of service tax on commission received for distributing mutual fund units. The Tribunal clarified that a sub-broker is considered a stock broker under the Finance Act and should not face double taxation. If a sub-broker has already paid service tax, the stock broker is entitled to credit. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish the chain of identity between sub-broker and stock broker for set-off. As the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, the extended limitation period did not apply, rendering the demand time-barred. The appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief granted. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 05:58:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348184 The case involved a dispute over the demand of service tax on commission received for distributing mutual fund units. The Tribunal clarified that a sub-broker is considered a stock broker under the Finance Act and should not face double taxation. If a sub-broker has already paid service tax, the stock broker is entitled to credit. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish the chain of identity between sub-broker and stock broker for set-off. As the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, the extended limitation period did not apply, rendering the demand time-barred. The appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348184