<?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>2025 (4) TMI 1338 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769424</link>
    <description>CESTAT addressed service tax liability and limitation period for reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice was time-barred under Section 73, as it was issued beyond the 18-month limitation period. Since the transaction was revenue-neutral and no intent to evade tax was established, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand on procedural grounds without examining the substantive tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:53:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=817102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1338 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769424</link>
      <description>CESTAT addressed service tax liability and limitation period for reverse charge mechanism. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice was time-barred under Section 73, as it was issued beyond the 18-month limitation period. Since the transaction was revenue-neutral and no intent to evade tax was established, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the demand on procedural grounds without examining the substantive tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>