<?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>2009 (8) TMI 667 - Gujarat HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77939</link>
    <description>A members&#039; sports club providing halls, lawns and similar facilities only to its own members under mutuality does not satisfy the statutory elements of a &quot;mandap keeper&quot; or taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The provision contemplates a commercial letting of immovable property to a client for social, official or business functions, not a non-commercial internal arrangement between a club and its members. The Court held that the facilities were neither lease nor hire in the relevant sense and that the levy would create double taxation. Service tax was therefore not leviable, the proceedings were quashed, and the recovered amounts were directed to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 667 - Gujarat HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77939</link>
      <description>A members&#039; sports club providing halls, lawns and similar facilities only to its own members under mutuality does not satisfy the statutory elements of a &quot;mandap keeper&quot; or taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The provision contemplates a commercial letting of immovable property to a client for social, official or business functions, not a non-commercial internal arrangement between a club and its members. The Court held that the facilities were neither lease nor hire in the relevant sense and that the levy would create double taxation. Service tax was therefore not leviable, the proceedings were quashed, and the recovered amounts were directed to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>