<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1040 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754433</link>
    <description>CESTAT Allahabad set aside a service tax demand order for renting immovable property services including common area maintenance, power supply, and parking charges. The tribunal found the original adjudicating authority failed to consider appellant&#039;s submissions and documentary evidence, violating natural justice principles. The order was deemed non-speaking as it ignored reconciliation between ST-3 returns and balance sheet, and failed to adjust service tax paid under different categories. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the tribunal noting no undischarged service tax liability except for two specific clients who had complied with deposit requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757414" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1040 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754433</link>
      <description>CESTAT Allahabad set aside a service tax demand order for renting immovable property services including common area maintenance, power supply, and parking charges. The tribunal found the original adjudicating authority failed to consider appellant&#039;s submissions and documentary evidence, violating natural justice principles. The order was deemed non-speaking as it ignored reconciliation between ST-3 returns and balance sheet, and failed to adjust service tax paid under different categories. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the tribunal noting no undischarged service tax liability except for two specific clients who had complied with deposit requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>