<?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>2007 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT, SIKKIM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2361</link>
    <description>The writ petition concerned whether interim protection should be granted against proposed service tax proceedings on the sale of lottery tickets, and whether the petitioner&#039;s activity could prima facie fall within business auxiliary service as promotional or marketing activity. The court examined the Finance Act provisions alongside the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and noted the petitioner&#039;s claim of outright principal-to-principal purchase. On a balance of circumstances, the arrangement appeared prima facie to resemble a middleman&#039;s role in promotion or marketing, so the issues were left for full hearing. Interim stay was refused and the departmental proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT, SIKKIM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2361</link>
      <description>The writ petition concerned whether interim protection should be granted against proposed service tax proceedings on the sale of lottery tickets, and whether the petitioner&#039;s activity could prima facie fall within business auxiliary service as promotional or marketing activity. The court examined the Finance Act provisions alongside the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and noted the petitioner&#039;s claim of outright principal-to-principal purchase. On a balance of circumstances, the arrangement appeared prima facie to resemble a middleman&#039;s role in promotion or marketing, so the issues were left for full hearing. Interim stay was refused and the departmental proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>