Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

over 1 year ago

•View on š•

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—µš—ŗš—²š—±š—®š—Æš—®š—± š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—®š—»š—± š—§š——š—¦ šŸ“¢ The Tribunal ruled: "TDS deposited, which is over and above the invoice value, cannot be charged to service tax as it is not part of the invoice value."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: Adani Bunkering Pvt. Ltd š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—² š—„š—®š—¶š˜€š—²š—±: The appellant paid service tax on the total invoice value to a foreign service provider under reverse charge. The Department claimed service tax was due on TDS paid to the Income Tax Department, which exceeded the invoice value.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that only the invoice value is subject to service tax under Section 67. Since TDS was not part of this value, it cannot be taxed, rendering the demand unsustainable and the impugned order set aside.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Adani Bunkering Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of C.E., Ahmedabad - II š—¦š—˜š—„š—©š—œš—–š—˜ š—§š—”š—« š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 11512 of 2016 - DB š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 22 January 2024

The appeal was allowed, confirming that TDS over and above the invoice amount does not attract service tax.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on š•

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own