<?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 1746 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790677</link>
    <description>Service tax on crushing and transportation charges was challenged on the ground that excise duty and VAT were already being collected on the same activity. The Supreme Court of India noted the dispute over overlapping tax treatment and, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, so the challenge to the proposed levy did not succeed. The text reflects the taxpayer&#039;s objection to dual taxation on the same activity and the unsuccessful result of that challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1746 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790677</link>
      <description>Service tax on crushing and transportation charges was challenged on the ground that excise duty and VAT were already being collected on the same activity. The Supreme Court of India noted the dispute over overlapping tax treatment and, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, so the challenge to the proposed levy did not succeed. The text reflects the taxpayer&#039;s objection to dual taxation on the same activity and the unsuccessful result of that challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>