<?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>2015 (7) TMI 827 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261866</link>
    <description>Port service under the Finance Act, 1994 is taxable only where the port, or a person authorised by it, actually renders a service in relation to a vessel or goods. On the captive jetty agreement, wharfage collected as a concessional statutory rebate against construction cost was not consideration for any service rendered by the Board, so no service tax arose. The licensee was also not authorised to recover wharfage from others, as the Board continued to collect the charges, meaning the statutory requirement of authorisation was absent. Lease rent for waterfront use and direct berthing facilities was likewise a charge for use of property, not port service, so service tax, interest and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 827 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261866</link>
      <description>Port service under the Finance Act, 1994 is taxable only where the port, or a person authorised by it, actually renders a service in relation to a vessel or goods. On the captive jetty agreement, wharfage collected as a concessional statutory rebate against construction cost was not consideration for any service rendered by the Board, so no service tax arose. The licensee was also not authorised to recover wharfage from others, as the Board continued to collect the charges, meaning the statutory requirement of authorisation was absent. Lease rent for waterfront use and direct berthing facilities was likewise a charge for use of property, not port service, so service tax, interest and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>