https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202112 Service tax on renting of immovable property was treated as an indirect levy on the service, not as a tax on property, so its incidence ordinarily fell on the user of the service. Because the levy arose after the lease was executed and the contract did not clearly exclude that burden, the contractual tax clause did not displace the statutory incidence. The court therefore held that the lessee bore the service tax, and the plaintiff was entitled to declaration, injunction and recovery of the tax amounts paid. en-us Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2014 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202112 Service tax on renting of immovable property was treated as an indirect levy on the service, not as a tax on property, so its incidence ordinarily fell on the user of the service. Because the levy arose after the lease was executed and the contract did not clearly exclude that burden, the contractual tax clause did not displace the statutory incidence. The court therefore held that the lessee bore the service tax, and the plaintiff was entitled to declaration, injunction and recovery of the tax amounts paid. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202112