<?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 (2) TMI 1341 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787193</link>
    <description>Ancillary receipts linked to the statutory transmission and distribution of electricity, including wheeling charges, meter rent, supervision charges, cross-subsidy charges and late payment surcharge, were treated as part of the principal exempt service under the naturally bundled services principle, so they were not separately exigible to service tax. The commentary also states that, where such receipts were duly reflected in the books and the dispute was one of classification and taxability rather than concealment, the extended period of limitation was not justified in the absence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. On that reasoning, the associated penalties also could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:41:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1341 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787193</link>
      <description>Ancillary receipts linked to the statutory transmission and distribution of electricity, including wheeling charges, meter rent, supervision charges, cross-subsidy charges and late payment surcharge, were treated as part of the principal exempt service under the naturally bundled services principle, so they were not separately exigible to service tax. The commentary also states that, where such receipts were duly reflected in the books and the dispute was one of classification and taxability rather than concealment, the extended period of limitation was not justified in the absence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. On that reasoning, the associated penalties also could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>