<?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 1015 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785259</link>
    <description>Service tax demand premised solely on unverified Form 26AS/CBDT data without independent verification was found procedurally unsustainable, resulting in setting aside the demand. Failure to comply with the Board&#039;s instruction requiring pre-Show Cause Notice consultation for demands exceeding the prescribed threshold rendered the SCN invalid, and the SCN was quashed on that ground. On merits, absence of corroborative evidence that services were taxable and not covered by the stated exemption led to dismissal of the demand. Consequentially, interest, penalty and late fee levies were held inapplicable and set aside as there was no surviving service tax liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=880206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1015 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785259</link>
      <description>Service tax demand premised solely on unverified Form 26AS/CBDT data without independent verification was found procedurally unsustainable, resulting in setting aside the demand. Failure to comply with the Board&#039;s instruction requiring pre-Show Cause Notice consultation for demands exceeding the prescribed threshold rendered the SCN invalid, and the SCN was quashed on that ground. On merits, absence of corroborative evidence that services were taxable and not covered by the stated exemption led to dismissal of the demand. Consequentially, interest, penalty and late fee levies were held inapplicable and set aside as there was no surviving service tax liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>