<?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>2012 (9) TMI 852 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217044</link>
    <description>A statutory corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was held to have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax dispute because it functioned as a public authority providing amenities under statutory arrangements. The tribunal relied on the recorded finding that the appellant was a public authority and on a CBEC circular stating that activities performed by a public authority under statutory provisions were not taxable under service tax. Pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalties was therefore waived, and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 852 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217044</link>
      <description>A statutory corporation constituted under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was held to have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in a service tax dispute because it functioned as a public authority providing amenities under statutory arrangements. The tribunal relied on the recorded finding that the appellant was a public authority and on a CBEC circular stating that activities performed by a public authority under statutory provisions were not taxable under service tax. Pre-deposit of service tax, interest and penalties was therefore waived, and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>