https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784358 The dominant issue was whether receipts treated by the department as consideration for taxable services were in fact proceeds from sale of soil, a transaction covered by the negative list under s. 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal relied on the appellant's CA-certified audited balance sheet and profit and loss accounts showing substantial purchases of soil and corresponding sale receipts, corroborated by sample invoices, and held that an erroneous entry in the income-tax return had wrongly triggered the demand; consequently, the receipts were not taxable as services and the service tax demand with interest and liability was set aside, allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784358 The dominant issue was whether receipts treated by the department as consideration for taxable services were in fact proceeds from sale of soil, a transaction covered by the negative list under s. 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal relied on the appellant's CA-certified audited balance sheet and profit and loss accounts showing substantial purchases of soil and corresponding sale receipts, corroborated by sample invoices, and held that an erroneous entry in the income-tax return had wrongly triggered the demand; consequently, the receipts were not taxable as services and the service tax demand with interest and liability was set aside, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784358