<?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>2013 (9) TMI 791 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237359</link>
    <description>A service tax demand against a petitioner-unit failed because the unit was not an independent legal person but only a unit of the Church of South India Trust Association. The High Court noted that the certificate of incorporation and memorandum of association showed the Trust Association, not the unit, owned the relevant properties and was the proper person against whom any fiscal proceedings had to be taken. An order issued on the wrong legal basis was therefore unsustainable and was quashed. The constitutional challenge to the service tax provisions was not examined because it did not survive after the foundational demand order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 791 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237359</link>
      <description>A service tax demand against a petitioner-unit failed because the unit was not an independent legal person but only a unit of the Church of South India Trust Association. The High Court noted that the certificate of incorporation and memorandum of association showed the Trust Association, not the unit, owned the relevant properties and was the proper person against whom any fiscal proceedings had to be taken. An order issued on the wrong legal basis was therefore unsustainable and was quashed. The constitutional challenge to the service tax provisions was not examined because it did not survive after the foundational demand order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>