https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416743 The tribunal quashed the service tax demand for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 due to lack of evidence supporting suppression or non-disclosure. For the period from April 2016 to June 2017, the demand for service tax on GTA services provided to proprietary firms was set aside in favor of the appellant as the firms were found liable under reverse charge. The tribunal did not address the threshold exemption issue as the liability under reverse charge mechanism was established. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief as per the law. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416743 The tribunal quashed the service tax demand for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 due to lack of evidence supporting suppression or non-disclosure. For the period from April 2016 to June 2017, the demand for service tax on GTA services provided to proprietary firms was set aside in favor of the appellant as the firms were found liable under reverse charge. The tribunal did not address the threshold exemption issue as the liability under reverse charge mechanism was established. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief as per the law. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416743