<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (6) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76270</link>
    <description>The High Court addressed the constitutional challenge to service tax provisions under the Finance Act, 1994, particularly the inclusion of renting immovable property as a taxable service. The court acknowledged the prima facie arguability of the petitioner&#039;s contentions regarding the retrospective application of the amended Section 65 (105) (zzzz) but refrained from immediately halting its prospective application. It directed the respondents not to take coercive recovery actions for service tax on renting immovable property for a specific period, expressing concerns over the retrospective application and indicating the need for further examination on substantial grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76270</link>
      <description>The High Court addressed the constitutional challenge to service tax provisions under the Finance Act, 1994, particularly the inclusion of renting immovable property as a taxable service. The court acknowledged the prima facie arguability of the petitioner&#039;s contentions regarding the retrospective application of the amended Section 65 (105) (zzzz) but refrained from immediately halting its prospective application. It directed the respondents not to take coercive recovery actions for service tax on renting immovable property for a specific period, expressing concerns over the retrospective application and indicating the need for further examination on substantial grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>