https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448423 Service tax could not be imposed on services received from a non-resident provider for the period before the statute introduced a specific charging mechanism, because liability under the statutory scheme rested on the service provider and a rule could not override the parent enactment. The later amendment showed that express legislative authority was absent for the earlier period. The levy for that period was therefore without authority of law, and the refund claim was sustainable. The reasoning followed the Bombay High Court's view on the same question, namely that recipient-based liability arises only when expressly created by statute, not by rules or notifications alone. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448423 Service tax could not be imposed on services received from a non-resident provider for the period before the statute introduced a specific charging mechanism, because liability under the statutory scheme rested on the service provider and a rule could not override the parent enactment. The later amendment showed that express legislative authority was absent for the earlier period. The levy for that period was therefore without authority of law, and the refund claim was sustainable. The reasoning followed the Bombay High Court's view on the same question, namely that recipient-based liability arises only when expressly created by statute, not by rules or notifications alone. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448423