https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32013 HC allowed the petition and held that prior to enactment of Section 66A a non-resident service provider, not the Indian recipient, was liable for service tax; Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) cannot create liability not authorized by statute. The court ruled that Explanation to Section 65(105) and Section 66A post-date the relevant period, and therefore restrained the Respondents from levying or recovering service tax from the members of the petitioner association for services received by their vessels outside India from non-resident providers for 1-3-2002 to 17-4-2006. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 17:36:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32013 HC allowed the petition and held that prior to enactment of Section 66A a non-resident service provider, not the Indian recipient, was liable for service tax; Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) cannot create liability not authorized by statute. The court ruled that Explanation to Section 65(105) and Section 66A post-date the relevant period, and therefore restrained the Respondents from levying or recovering service tax from the members of the petitioner association for services received by their vessels outside India from non-resident providers for 1-3-2002 to 17-4-2006. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32013