https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792624 Service tax demand cannot be sustained merely by comparing the trial balance with ST-3 returns when the sub-ledger records and the applicable valuation method show a different taxable base. The demand here was built on progressive credits and opening debtors in the trial balance, without accounting for closing balances or extracting actual revenue from the underlying records. That approach was inconsistent with Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. In the absence of corroborative evidence that the entire trial balance difference represented taxable turnover, the demand was set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2026 11:27:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792624 Service tax demand cannot be sustained merely by comparing the trial balance with ST-3 returns when the sub-ledger records and the applicable valuation method show a different taxable base. The demand here was built on progressive credits and opening debtors in the trial balance, without accounting for closing balances or extracting actual revenue from the underlying records. That approach was inconsistent with Section 67(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011. In the absence of corroborative evidence that the entire trial balance difference represented taxable turnover, the demand was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792624