<?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 (8) TMI 1340 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757636</link>
    <description>The AP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax assessment order issued against a sub-contractor who failed to pay service tax despite declaring income and paying income tax on sub-contracts. The petitioner claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax but approached the HC directly without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals). The court held that the original authority had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order based on available material, and the question of contractor versus sub-contractor status was a factual determination. The petition was dismissed for non-exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 08:37:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1340 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757636</link>
      <description>The AP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax assessment order issued against a sub-contractor who failed to pay service tax despite declaring income and paying income tax on sub-contracts. The petitioner claimed exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax but approached the HC directly without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals). The court held that the original authority had jurisdiction to pass the assessment order based on available material, and the question of contractor versus sub-contractor status was a factual determination. The petition was dismissed for non-exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>