<?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>Taxable value excludes reimbursements and separately sold goods; soil supply is not site formation service.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98270</link>
    <description>Reimbursements of wages paid to field consultants were held not includible in taxable value where they were mere pass-through amounts and tax had already been discharged on the service charge; the related demand was set aside. Diesel supplied under separate contracts was treated as a goods transaction, not part of the service value, so service tax on that component was unsustainable. Supply of soil by unit-based work order was not site formation service because it did not involve preparatory site activity. A demand based only on mismatch between ST-3 returns and balance sheet failed for want of evidence, and extended limitation was rejected as suppression was not proved. The demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Taxable value excludes reimbursements and separately sold goods; soil supply is not site formation service.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98270</link>
      <description>Reimbursements of wages paid to field consultants were held not includible in taxable value where they were mere pass-through amounts and tax had already been discharged on the service charge; the related demand was set aside. Diesel supplied under separate contracts was treated as a goods transaction, not part of the service value, so service tax on that component was unsustainable. Supply of soil by unit-based work order was not site formation service because it did not involve preparatory site activity. A demand based only on mismatch between ST-3 returns and balance sheet failed for want of evidence, and extended limitation was rejected as suppression was not proved. The demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>