<?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 (10) TMI 578 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265303</link>
    <description>Amounts collected by a promoter from prospective flat buyers to meet statutory outgoings and maintenance expenses on a cost-to-cost basis were treated as held for a limited statutory purpose, not as consideration for taxable Management, Maintenance or Repair Service; the related service tax demand was therefore deleted. The promoter&#039;s role was characterised as that of a trustee or pure agent until formation of the cooperative society, so no service element arose on those receipts. By contrast, the service tax demand under GTA service was sustained with interest, and the penalties were set aside because the principal maintenance demand failed and the GTA liability had been discharged with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 578 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265303</link>
      <description>Amounts collected by a promoter from prospective flat buyers to meet statutory outgoings and maintenance expenses on a cost-to-cost basis were treated as held for a limited statutory purpose, not as consideration for taxable Management, Maintenance or Repair Service; the related service tax demand was therefore deleted. The promoter&#039;s role was characterised as that of a trustee or pure agent until formation of the cooperative society, so no service element arose on those receipts. By contrast, the service tax demand under GTA service was sustained with interest, and the penalties were set aside because the principal maintenance demand failed and the GTA liability had been discharged with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>