<?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>2023 (8) TMI 48 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441069</link>
    <description>Service tax demand based solely on a mismatch between turnover in income tax records/Form 26AS and nil turnover in ST-3 returns was held unsustainable because the SCN was wholly presumptive, did not identify the underlying activity, and failed to examine whether the differential turnover related to taxable services or non-taxable business; absent investigation and admissible evidence, mere arithmetical application of the tax rate to the difference could not found liability. Consequently, the dropping of the major demand was upheld and the residual confirmed demand, interest, and equal penalty were set aside; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 48 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441069</link>
      <description>Service tax demand based solely on a mismatch between turnover in income tax records/Form 26AS and nil turnover in ST-3 returns was held unsustainable because the SCN was wholly presumptive, did not identify the underlying activity, and failed to examine whether the differential turnover related to taxable services or non-taxable business; absent investigation and admissible evidence, mere arithmetical application of the tax rate to the difference could not found liability. Consequently, the dropping of the major demand was upheld and the residual confirmed demand, interest, and equal penalty were set aside; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>