<?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>2014 (9) TMI 697 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251671</link>
    <description>Leasing of land by a statutory corporation on commercial terms was treated as a non-sovereign activity and regarded as liable to service tax under renting of immovable property from the relevant statutory date. The corporation was viewed as a separate body corporate, with its property, funds and receipts governed by the State statute rather than forming part of the State consolidated fund, which weakened the claim that the activity was a sovereign function. As no strong prima facie case for complete waiver was shown and the appellant had substantial current assets, full pre-deposit relief was refused and only conditional waiver was considered appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 697 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251671</link>
      <description>Leasing of land by a statutory corporation on commercial terms was treated as a non-sovereign activity and regarded as liable to service tax under renting of immovable property from the relevant statutory date. The corporation was viewed as a separate body corporate, with its property, funds and receipts governed by the State statute rather than forming part of the State consolidated fund, which weakened the claim that the activity was a sovereign function. As no strong prima facie case for complete waiver was shown and the appellant had substantial current assets, full pre-deposit relief was refused and only conditional waiver was considered appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>