<?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>Appeal allowed; demand quashed after supplier proved receipt and service nature, granting exemption for educational and E-Village supplies</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91742</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed the demand. The tribunal held that the appellant established receipt and nature of services via ST-3 returns, balance-sheet figures and Form 26AS, entitling it to exemption for services rendered to educational institutions and supplies to the E-Village under the relevant notification. The tribunal rejected the authority&#039;s reliance on technical defects in invoices, affirmed that the provider&#039;s liability is distinct from the recipient&#039;s (negating reverse-charge attribution to the appellant), and found no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Consequential demands of service tax, interest and penalty were found without merit and discharged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=844836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; demand quashed after supplier proved receipt and service nature, granting exemption for educational and E-Village supplies</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91742</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and quashed the demand. The tribunal held that the appellant established receipt and nature of services via ST-3 returns, balance-sheet figures and Form 26AS, entitling it to exemption for services rendered to educational institutions and supplies to the E-Village under the relevant notification. The tribunal rejected the authority&#039;s reliance on technical defects in invoices, affirmed that the provider&#039;s liability is distinct from the recipient&#039;s (negating reverse-charge attribution to the appellant), and found no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Consequential demands of service tax, interest and penalty were found without merit and discharged.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:35:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>