<?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>Reverse Charge Liability: recipient bears service tax for manpower supply; extended limitation and penalty disallowed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97273</link>
    <description>The note addresses tax treatment of manpower supply services, applying the Service Tax Rules definition of &#039;supply of manpower&#039; and the reverse charge principle that places service tax liability on the recipient where manpower is supplied by an individual or partnership to a body corporate; the liability for services to RailTel therefore rests with the recipient. It finds invocation of the extended limitation period unsustainable where the issue was already known from an earlier audit, and it sets aside demands made on that basis. It also concludes that penalty for suppression is unwarranted where the supplier declared services and no corroborative evidence of evasion exists.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:21:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:21:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reverse Charge Liability: recipient bears service tax for manpower supply; extended limitation and penalty disallowed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97273</link>
      <description>The note addresses tax treatment of manpower supply services, applying the Service Tax Rules definition of &#039;supply of manpower&#039; and the reverse charge principle that places service tax liability on the recipient where manpower is supplied by an individual or partnership to a body corporate; the liability for services to RailTel therefore rests with the recipient. It finds invocation of the extended limitation period unsustainable where the issue was already known from an earlier audit, and it sets aside demands made on that basis. It also concludes that penalty for suppression is unwarranted where the supplier declared services and no corroborative evidence of evasion exists.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:21:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>