https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392248 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing service tax, interest, and penalties on the appellant for allegedly clubbing services provided by two different firms owned by the same proprietor. The Tribunal found that the department's allegation of treating the services as composite due to common ownership was unsustainable. Emphasizing the distinct activities of each firm and separate billing to clients, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that there was no basis for considering the services as a single composite service for taxation purposes. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392248 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing service tax, interest, and penalties on the appellant for allegedly clubbing services provided by two different firms owned by the same proprietor. The Tribunal found that the department's allegation of treating the services as composite due to common ownership was unsustainable. Emphasizing the distinct activities of each firm and separate billing to clients, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that there was no basis for considering the services as a single composite service for taxation purposes. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392248