<?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 (10) TMI 632 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429074</link>
    <description>Service tax was not payable at the enhanced rate on the portion of insurance premium attributable to a future period where the entire premium had already been paid and the original service tax liability discharged before the rate change. The Tribunal held that the subsequent revision of the tax rate did not create liability on amounts already paid for the policy term, and the SC agreed, finding no reason to take a different view. The assessee was therefore not liable for the enhanced rate on the future-period premium.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=693537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 632 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429074</link>
      <description>Service tax was not payable at the enhanced rate on the portion of insurance premium attributable to a future period where the entire premium had already been paid and the original service tax liability discharged before the rate change. The Tribunal held that the subsequent revision of the tax rate did not create liability on amounts already paid for the policy term, and the SC agreed, finding no reason to take a different view. The assessee was therefore not liable for the enhanced rate on the future-period premium.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>