<?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 (7) TMI 1054 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795168</link>
    <description>Business auxiliary service liability under the reverse charge mechanism was discussed in relation to whether amounts described as commission in principal-to-principal sales represented taxable commission-agent services or trade discounts and reimbursements. The text records that the Tribunal treated the amounts as non-taxable discounts or reimbursements, accepted contractual evidence absent proof of fabrication, and accepted retraction of an earlier statement. The Supreme Court rejected condonation of a 970-day delay for insufficient cause and dismissed the civil appeal as time-barred; the article does not provide an adjudication on the substantive tax issue by the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1054 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795168</link>
      <description>Business auxiliary service liability under the reverse charge mechanism was discussed in relation to whether amounts described as commission in principal-to-principal sales represented taxable commission-agent services or trade discounts and reimbursements. The text records that the Tribunal treated the amounts as non-taxable discounts or reimbursements, accepted contractual evidence absent proof of fabrication, and accepted retraction of an earlier statement. The Supreme Court rejected condonation of a 970-day delay for insufficient cause and dismissed the civil appeal as time-barred; the article does not provide an adjudication on the substantive tax issue by the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>