Stay updated
The CESTAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/s Arunachala Logistics (P) Ltd. held that where the entire service tax liability has already been discharged by the service provider, any further demand on the service recipient under the RCM would
The CESTAT New Delhi in the case of Godfrey Phillips India Limited held that subscription and redemption of Mutual Fund units cannot be considered “trading of goods/securities” under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it lacks transfer of title, involves unit cancellation/relinquishment rather than sale/purchase to third party, and thus does not qualify as “exempted service”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adani Power Mundra Ltd. 2025 held that compliance with the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s order granting refund of service tax on ocean freight under reverse charge must await the final outcome of the pending appeal in SAL Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, which questions the constitutional validity of that levy.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise, Jaipur-I[Final Order No. 50957–50958/2025, dated July 02, 2025] held that incentives/ discounts received by car dealers from manufacturers are not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service, being transactions on a principal-to-principal basis.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. remands matter where Commissioner erroneously applied Safari Retreats ratio under the CGST Act, without examining pari materia status of provisions under the Service tax provisions.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Akshita Exports held that service tax cannot be levied on commission amounts merely shown in export invoices, when there is no contract or direct payment relationship between the Indian exporter and the alleged foreign service provider.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in Bajaj Resources Ltd. held that royalty paid towards the right to use a registered trademark constitutes a ‘deemed sale’ and is not leviable to service tax; accordingly, the demand under Section 73(1) was set aside.