<?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 (8) TMI 1604 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797730</link>
    <description>Service tax paid under reverse charge on exempt legal services, where the taxable value remains below the threshold, is treated as a deposit rather than tax legally due. An advance received for proposed services but recovered after contract termination, without any service being rendered or consideration retained, does not form turnover for threshold-exemption purposes. Reversal of unutilised CENVAT credit removes the related objection to exemption. As no tax liability arises, the one-year refund limitation under Section 11B does not apply. Refund is also not barred by unjust enrichment where the tax incidence was not passed on and the claimant bore the burden.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1604 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797730</link>
      <description>Service tax paid under reverse charge on exempt legal services, where the taxable value remains below the threshold, is treated as a deposit rather than tax legally due. An advance received for proposed services but recovered after contract termination, without any service being rendered or consideration retained, does not form turnover for threshold-exemption purposes. Reversal of unutilised CENVAT credit removes the related objection to exemption. As no tax liability arises, the one-year refund limitation under Section 11B does not apply. Refund is also not barred by unjust enrichment where the tax incidence was not passed on and the claimant bore the burden.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>