<?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 (5) TMI 1664 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792461</link>
    <description>Service tax on GTA services was considered unsustainable against the service provider where the recipient had discharged tax under reverse charge for a substantial part of the receipts. On the evidence of the books, income-tax return and the recipient&#039;s letter, the taxable value had already been identified and the burden could not be shifted back to the provider. The Tribunal also treated the appellant&#039;s understanding that the recipient was liable for the tax as bona fide, so the conditions for extended limitation were not met because suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade were absent. Interest and consequential penalties also fell with the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1664 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792461</link>
      <description>Service tax on GTA services was considered unsustainable against the service provider where the recipient had discharged tax under reverse charge for a substantial part of the receipts. On the evidence of the books, income-tax return and the recipient&#039;s letter, the taxable value had already been identified and the burden could not be shifted back to the provider. The Tribunal also treated the appellant&#039;s understanding that the recipient was liable for the tax as bona fide, so the conditions for extended limitation were not met because suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade were absent. Interest and consequential penalties also fell with the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>