Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The CESTAT ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT ruled that the leasing of "Scaffolding items" by the Appellant, on which VAT had been paid as a deemed sale within the meaning of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, did not attract service tax liability. The Tribunal held that there was a transfer of the right to use, possession, and effective control over the scaffolding items in favor of the lessees. Consequently, the transaction qualified as a deemed sale liable for VAT, and not a service subject to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
