https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373014 The appellant was held liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for services received from foreign-based providers, even though part of the funds were used abroad. The demand for service tax was not barred by the statute of limitation as the appellant had not taken proactive steps to discharge their liability. The jurisdictional issues regarding show cause notices issued by different Commissionerates were analyzed, leading to the conclusion that the part objected to by one Commissionerate did not survive due to lack of relevance to the transaction. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Mar 2020 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373014 The appellant was held liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for services received from foreign-based providers, even though part of the funds were used abroad. The demand for service tax was not barred by the statute of limitation as the appellant had not taken proactive steps to discharge their liability. The jurisdictional issues regarding show cause notices issued by different Commissionerates were analyzed, leading to the conclusion that the part objected to by one Commissionerate did not survive due to lack of relevance to the transaction. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373014