https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254702 The appeal was initially rejected due to non-compliance with the stay order issued by Commissioner (A), but upon review, it was decided that the appeal could proceed without compliance. An estate developer providing construction services was found liable for service tax on work done under a joint development agreement. The Commissioner (A) directed a pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount, but the Tribunal allowed the appellant time to comply and present their case. The judgment provided guidance on compliance with stay orders, service tax liability, and pre-deposit amounts, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case. en-us Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254702 The appeal was initially rejected due to non-compliance with the stay order issued by Commissioner (A), but upon review, it was decided that the appeal could proceed without compliance. An estate developer providing construction services was found liable for service tax on work done under a joint development agreement. The Commissioner (A) directed a pre-deposit of the entire service tax amount, but the Tribunal allowed the appellant time to comply and present their case. The judgment provided guidance on compliance with stay orders, service tax liability, and pre-deposit amounts, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 30 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254702