<?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>CESTAT ruled appellant provided Legal Consultancy service, not Business Auxiliary Service. Service recipient not liable for service tax.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78657</link>
    <description>CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of classifying services as either business auxiliary or legal services. The appellant provided Legal Consultancy service related to labor law, potentially falling under legal services or Manpower Supply Service. The lower authorities failed to properly assess facts and evidence. The claim that the service recipient paid service tax was dismissed based on incomplete verification. The appellant cannot be doubly liable for service tax if the recipient has already paid. The case was remanded for further review by the Adjudicating Authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:40:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:40:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CESTAT ruled appellant provided Legal Consultancy service, not Business Auxiliary Service. Service recipient not liable for service tax.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78657</link>
      <description>CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of classifying services as either business auxiliary or legal services. The appellant provided Legal Consultancy service related to labor law, potentially falling under legal services or Manpower Supply Service. The lower authorities failed to properly assess facts and evidence. The claim that the service recipient paid service tax was dismissed based on incomplete verification. The appellant cannot be doubly liable for service tax if the recipient has already paid. The case was remanded for further review by the Adjudicating Authority.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:40:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>