https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764569 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that registration under Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons), 2005, was not necessary for the respondent, a nationalized bank, to act as an Input Service Distributor. The Court agreed that the respondent's transparency and compliance with tax obligations negated the need for additional registration. Furthermore, the Court upheld the validity of internal statements for Cenvat credit under Rule 9(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were based on proper invoices and consistent with past audits. No substantial questions of law were found. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:00:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764569 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that registration under Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Registration of Special Category of Persons), 2005, was not necessary for the respondent, a nationalized bank, to act as an Input Service Distributor. The Court agreed that the respondent's transparency and compliance with tax obligations negated the need for additional registration. Furthermore, the Court upheld the validity of internal statements for Cenvat credit under Rule 9(I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were based on proper invoices and consistent with past audits. No substantial questions of law were found. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764569