<?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>2018 (2) TMI 576 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355155</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the taxability of activities related to the sale of SIM cards and electronic rechargeable coupons under business auxiliary service for Service Tax. The Tribunal held that demanding Service Tax from the appellant after BSNL had already paid would result in double taxation. It was determined that the appellant&#039;s activities did not fall under the category of &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; as they were engaged in trading activities on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal set aside the order, emphasizing the importance of avoiding double taxation and correctly categorizing activities for Service Tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 576 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355155</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the taxability of activities related to the sale of SIM cards and electronic rechargeable coupons under business auxiliary service for Service Tax. The Tribunal held that demanding Service Tax from the appellant after BSNL had already paid would result in double taxation. It was determined that the appellant&#039;s activities did not fall under the category of &#039;business auxiliary service&#039; as they were engaged in trading activities on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal set aside the order, emphasizing the importance of avoiding double taxation and correctly categorizing activities for Service Tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>