<?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>Appellants&#039; receipts characterized as taxable services u/s 65B; liability sustained, one receipt exempted; extended limitation not invoked</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95982</link>
    <description>Whether appellants&#039; receipts constituted taxable &quot;service&quot; or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant&#039;s activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:24:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:24:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellants&#039; receipts characterized as taxable services u/s 65B; liability sustained, one receipt exempted; extended limitation not invoked</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95982</link>
      <description>Whether appellants&#039; receipts constituted taxable &quot;service&quot; or fell within exemptions: Tribunal found generally that, for lack of mandatory documentary proof (agreements, payment particulars, bank statements), the appellant&#039;s activities fell within taxable work-contract/service definitions under Section 65B, making them liable to service tax - outcome: liability sustained. Whether extended limitation (proviso to s.73(1)) could be invoked for a specific receipt: on the particular transaction, produced evidence and bona fide belief (certificates, corrected 26AS) established the receipt as supply of goods and/or an exempt service, so invoking the extended period was not justified - outcome: demand on that receipt not confirmed. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 11:24:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>