<?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 (9) TMI 776 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758532</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal filed by a government corporation incorporated by Bihar State against service tax demand on transportation of goods by road services under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal relied on Gujarat HC precedent establishing that trade across the country did not pay service tax on transportation of Tur Dal till 2010, and department did not dispute this interpretation. Since non-payment could not be attributed to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, extended limitation period was not applicable. The demand beyond normal eighteen-month limitation period was held unsustainable, and appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds without examining merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 776 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758532</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal filed by a government corporation incorporated by Bihar State against service tax demand on transportation of goods by road services under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal relied on Gujarat HC precedent establishing that trade across the country did not pay service tax on transportation of Tur Dal till 2010, and department did not dispute this interpretation. Since non-payment could not be attributed to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, extended limitation period was not applicable. The demand beyond normal eighteen-month limitation period was held unsustainable, and appeal was allowed solely on limitation grounds without examining merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>