<?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>Service Tax Must Be Calculated on Gross Commission for Loan Facilitation Services, Rules CESTAT u/s 67.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85266</link>
    <description>CESTAT determined service tax liability on commission-based loan facilitation services. Appellant challenged tax calculation basis and limitation period. Tribunal held service tax must be computed on gross commission amount per Section 67 of Finance Act, not net commission received, following precedent in JMD Marketing case. However, extended limitation period u/s 73(1) was invalidly invoked as Department failed to prove willful suppression of facts, considering appellant&#039;s bona fide belief and consistent tax payments on net commission. While ruling against appellant on valuation methodology, appeal succeeded on limitation grounds. Demand held time-barred, impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:30 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Service Tax Must Be Calculated on Gross Commission for Loan Facilitation Services, Rules CESTAT u/s 67.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85266</link>
      <description>CESTAT determined service tax liability on commission-based loan facilitation services. Appellant challenged tax calculation basis and limitation period. Tribunal held service tax must be computed on gross commission amount per Section 67 of Finance Act, not net commission received, following precedent in JMD Marketing case. However, extended limitation period u/s 73(1) was invalidly invoked as Department failed to prove willful suppression of facts, considering appellant&#039;s bona fide belief and consistent tax payments on net commission. While ruling against appellant on valuation methodology, appeal succeeded on limitation grounds. Demand held time-barred, impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:30 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>