<?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 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240604</link>
    <description>Amounts collected by builders from flat purchasers as one-time maintenance deposits, when kept in a separate account for statutory outgoings, common area upkeep and related payments until formation of the co-operative society, were not consideration for taxable maintenance or repair service. The governing state law required the promoter to hold and disburse the sums for the specified purposes and to meet outgoings until transfer. On those facts, the builders acted only as trustees or pure agents, paying municipal dues, utility charges and service-provider charges on a cost-to-cost basis without any service element of their own, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240604</link>
      <description>Amounts collected by builders from flat purchasers as one-time maintenance deposits, when kept in a separate account for statutory outgoings, common area upkeep and related payments until formation of the co-operative society, were not consideration for taxable maintenance or repair service. The governing state law required the promoter to hold and disburse the sums for the specified purposes and to meet outgoings until transfer. On those facts, the builders acted only as trustees or pure agents, paying municipal dues, utility charges and service-provider charges on a cost-to-cost basis without any service element of their own, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>