<?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>2026 (1) TMI 158 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784402</link>
    <description>VCES discharge of declared dues, together with the record of Form 26AS, work orders and reconciliation statements, left no surviving service tax liability or penalty where the broader demand was not supported by reliable evidence of receipt. The adjudicating authority found that some receipts were taxable only to the extent reflected in statutory records, that certain post-exemption-period receipts remained taxable, and that manpower supply receipts were taxable. It also held that the show cause notice used inconsistent and unsupported quantification, so liability could be sustained only on actual receipts and applicable abatements. The final quantified demand was nevertheless neutralised by valid VCES payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 158 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784402</link>
      <description>VCES discharge of declared dues, together with the record of Form 26AS, work orders and reconciliation statements, left no surviving service tax liability or penalty where the broader demand was not supported by reliable evidence of receipt. The adjudicating authority found that some receipts were taxable only to the extent reflected in statutory records, that certain post-exemption-period receipts remained taxable, and that manpower supply receipts were taxable. It also held that the show cause notice used inconsistent and unsupported quantification, so liability could be sustained only on actual receipts and applicable abatements. The final quantified demand was nevertheless neutralised by valid VCES payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>