https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763664 CESTAT Chandigarh held that appellant did not illegally collect service tax from sub-agents. The tribunal found that commission and tax burden were legitimately shared between appellant and sub-agents, with appellant paying service tax on total remuneration and recovering sub-agent's portion. Revenue's allegation of unauthorized collection lacked evidence. The arrangement constituted proper accounting for shared tax liability rather than illegal collection. Section 73A provisions were wrongly invoked as no unpaid service tax existed. Demanding tax again would constitute double taxation. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2024 21:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763664 CESTAT Chandigarh held that appellant did not illegally collect service tax from sub-agents. The tribunal found that commission and tax burden were legitimately shared between appellant and sub-agents, with appellant paying service tax on total remuneration and recovering sub-agent's portion. Revenue's allegation of unauthorized collection lacked evidence. The arrangement constituted proper accounting for shared tax liability rather than illegal collection. Section 73A provisions were wrongly invoked as no unpaid service tax existed. Demanding tax again would constitute double taxation. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763664