<?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 (9) TMI 271 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427326</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the service tax rate applicable is based on the service rendition date, not the date of the supplementary invoice. The appellant&#039;s issuance of supplementary invoices at the old 10% rate, despite the subsequent increase to 12%, was deemed valid. The tribunal referenced legal precedents and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, to support their decision, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief in alignment with Supreme Court precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 07:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 271 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427326</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the service tax rate applicable is based on the service rendition date, not the date of the supplementary invoice. The appellant&#039;s issuance of supplementary invoices at the old 10% rate, despite the subsequent increase to 12%, was deemed valid. The tribunal referenced legal precedents and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, to support their decision, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief in alignment with Supreme Court precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>