<?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>Mutual fund sub-distributor service tax liability upheld; reverse charge, taxable consideration, extended limitation and penalties sustained.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98381</link>
    <description>Service tax liability of a mutual fund sub-distributor was held to arise from the status of the service provider: the reverse charge notification applied to services provided by a distributor to the mutual fund, not to a sub-distributor rendering Business Auxiliary Service to the distributor. Receipts from the cooperative bank were also treated as taxable consideration because wages alone did not prove an employer-employee relationship and no employment contract was produced. The Tribunal further upheld extended limitation and penalty under section 78, finding no material basis for bona fide belief or delayed registration. Penalties under sections 77(1)(c) and 77(2) were sustained for failure to furnish information and file ST-3 returns.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Mutual fund sub-distributor service tax liability upheld; reverse charge, taxable consideration, extended limitation and penalties sustained.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98381</link>
      <description>Service tax liability of a mutual fund sub-distributor was held to arise from the status of the service provider: the reverse charge notification applied to services provided by a distributor to the mutual fund, not to a sub-distributor rendering Business Auxiliary Service to the distributor. Receipts from the cooperative bank were also treated as taxable consideration because wages alone did not prove an employer-employee relationship and no employment contract was produced. The Tribunal further upheld extended limitation and penalty under section 78, finding no material basis for bona fide belief or delayed registration. Penalties under sections 77(1)(c) and 77(2) were sustained for failure to furnish information and file ST-3 returns.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>