<?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 (1) TMI 1674 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281452</link>
    <description>Service tax liability arises only on provision of a taxable service, not merely on receipt of an advance. On the facts stated, the amount was taken as an advance against a bank guarantee and no taxable service had yet been provided; the timing of any later adjustment would matter only for fixing when tax incidence arose. Accordingly, the advance receipt was not subject to service tax in the absence of an actual taxable service.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:23:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1674 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281452</link>
      <description>Service tax liability arises only on provision of a taxable service, not merely on receipt of an advance. On the facts stated, the amount was taken as an advance against a bank guarantee and no taxable service had yet been provided; the timing of any later adjustment would matter only for fixing when tax incidence arose. Accordingly, the advance receipt was not subject to service tax in the absence of an actual taxable service.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>