Mere Issuance Of Order Doesn’t Amount To Valid Communication Unless Supported By Evidence of Service: CESTAT

HomeIndirect TaxesMere Issuance Of Order Doesn’t Amount To Valid Communication Unless Supported By...

Mere Issuance Of Order Doesn’t Amount To Valid Communication Unless Supported By Evidence of Service: CESTAT

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

30/03/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

Mere Issuance Of Order Doesn’t Amount To Valid Communication Unless Supported By Evidence: CESTAT

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has remanded a dispute involving service tax refund claims, emphasizing that mere issuance of an order does not amount to valid communication unless supported by evidence. The bench of Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) has observed that the Department failed to produce…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Mere Issuance Of Order Doesn’t Amount To Valid Communication Unless Supported By Evidence of Service: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

More like this

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

About us

Company

Categories