https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413044 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax liability dispute involving consulting engineer services, rent-a-cab service, and legal services under reverse charge. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed but confirmed the tax liability. The Tribunal held that reimbursements for consulting engineer services should not be separately taxed, and the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST for road construction services. Form 26AS was not considered a statutory document for determining taxable turnover, and the extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was deemed incorrect. The appeal was allowed due to the lack of specific allegations for the demand under the reverse charge mechanism for rent-a-cab service. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Mar 2022 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413044 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a tax liability dispute involving consulting engineer services, rent-a-cab service, and legal services under reverse charge. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed but confirmed the tax liability. The Tribunal held that reimbursements for consulting engineer services should not be separately taxed, and the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST for road construction services. Form 26AS was not considered a statutory document for determining taxable turnover, and the extended period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was deemed incorrect. The appeal was allowed due to the lack of specific allegations for the demand under the reverse charge mechanism for rent-a-cab service. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413044