<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1320 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420282</link>
    <description>Service tax demand based only on income-tax search material, Excel sheets and employee statements was held unsustainable because the Revenue had not independently corroborated the alleged cash receipts, and the electronic and oral evidence was not proved with required safeguards. Demand under construction service and works contract service also failed because the activity was not shown to fall within the alleged taxable category on the department&#039;s pleaded basis, unreceived consideration could not be taxed as proposed, and amounts said to be received before 31.03.2014 could not support the extended period on the facts recorded. The assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1320 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420282</link>
      <description>Service tax demand based only on income-tax search material, Excel sheets and employee statements was held unsustainable because the Revenue had not independently corroborated the alleged cash receipts, and the electronic and oral evidence was not proved with required safeguards. Demand under construction service and works contract service also failed because the activity was not shown to fall within the alleged taxable category on the department&#039;s pleaded basis, unreceived consideration could not be taxed as proposed, and amounts said to be received before 31.03.2014 could not support the extended period on the facts recorded. The assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed and the demand and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>