https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220810 The appellant's argument that they were a sub-broker under the SEBI Act 1992 was dismissed as they lacked SEBI registration, a prerequisite for sub-brokers. Their services were correctly classified as business auxiliary services, not exempt from service tax. The appellant's reliance on a Board Circular and a certificate from the stock broker was deemed irrelevant. The appellant was only liable for service tax for the normal period and was not penalized due to genuine confusion. The judgment clarified the appellant's status and granted partial relief based on their misunderstanding of the law. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220810 The appellant's argument that they were a sub-broker under the SEBI Act 1992 was dismissed as they lacked SEBI registration, a prerequisite for sub-brokers. Their services were correctly classified as business auxiliary services, not exempt from service tax. The appellant's reliance on a Board Circular and a certificate from the stock broker was deemed irrelevant. The appellant was only liable for service tax for the normal period and was not penalized due to genuine confusion. The judgment clarified the appellant's status and granted partial relief based on their misunderstanding of the law. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220810