<?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>2006 (8) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=809</link>
    <description>Coal movement within a thermal power plant, involving unloading from railway wagons through wagon tipplers, stacking, reclaiming and feeding boiler bunkers by conveyor, was treated as distinct from cargo handling because it was internal movement of goods within the premises and not transportation-related loading or unloading of cargo. The service was therefore held outside the scope of cargo handling services and not liable to service tax. The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected because no efficacious statutory remedy was available and the challenge raised a jurisdictional issue, so writ jurisdiction was maintainable. The impugned demand and related communications were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 28 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=809</link>
      <description>Coal movement within a thermal power plant, involving unloading from railway wagons through wagon tipplers, stacking, reclaiming and feeding boiler bunkers by conveyor, was treated as distinct from cargo handling because it was internal movement of goods within the premises and not transportation-related loading or unloading of cargo. The service was therefore held outside the scope of cargo handling services and not liable to service tax. The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected because no efficacious statutory remedy was available and the challenge raised a jurisdictional issue, so writ jurisdiction was maintainable. The impugned demand and related communications were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>