<?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 (4) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789437</link>
    <description>Export-of-service exemption for General Sales Agent work was available only when the statutory conditions were strictly met: for the post-2005 period, services delivered and used outside India with receipt in convertible foreign exchange qualified as export in one appeal. However, overriding commission received through credit notes in Indian rupees did not satisfy the mandatory foreign-exchange payment condition under the circular and notification, so exemption was denied. The extended limitation period under section 73(1) was also upheld because the assessees had prior knowledge of possible service tax liability yet continued the same billing and receipt mechanism without adequate disclosure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789437</link>
      <description>Export-of-service exemption for General Sales Agent work was available only when the statutory conditions were strictly met: for the post-2005 period, services delivered and used outside India with receipt in convertible foreign exchange qualified as export in one appeal. However, overriding commission received through credit notes in Indian rupees did not satisfy the mandatory foreign-exchange payment condition under the circular and notification, so exemption was denied. The extended limitation period under section 73(1) was also upheld because the assessees had prior knowledge of possible service tax liability yet continued the same billing and receipt mechanism without adequate disclosure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>