Refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism - time ...

Service Tax

April 26, 2018

Refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism - time limitation - refund claim has to be filed within one year from the relevant date - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism - time ...

Service Tax

April 26, 2018

You may also like:

Refund of service tax paid - Period of limitation - As the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of the adjudication order wherein it has been held...

Refund claim - service tax was paid under reverse change mechanism - Technical Testing and Analysis Service - service was not partly performed in India - period of...

CENVAT credit on unregistered premises - reverse charge mechanism - As the tax has been discharged on ‘reverse charge’ mechanism, the identity of provider of service is...

Refund claim of Cenvat credit - Export - Nexus between input and output service - service tax paid on business auxiliary service - ST paid on reverse charge basis -...

Waiver of pre-deposit - Business Auxiliary Service - import of services - reverse charge mechanism - revenue neutrality - The refund of Service Tax so payable is not...

Once the service provider has paid the tax under reverse charge mechanism, service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant - demand of service with penalty set aside - AT

Refund of erroneous payment of service tax - the appellant as a LLP, is not required to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism during the period under...

Refund claim on service tax paid on reverse charge basis denied - the refund of CENVAT Credit on the input service is admissible under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - AT

Utilization of Cenvat Credit for payment of service tax paid under Reverse charge mechanism - import of services - prima facie case is against the assessee - stay...

Refund of service tax paid on GTA services - service tax was paid directly by the provider of services whereas it was the liability of the recipient under reverse charge...

Quick Updates: