https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334502 Royalty paid under the port arrangement was held not to be consideration for renting or leasing immovable property. Reading the agreement as a whole, the Tribunal found that the port trust granted exclusive port-operating rights, assumed operational obligations, and shared joint control and revenue in a public-private venture, indicating a joint venture rather than a landlord-service recipient relationship. Because there was no direct and identifiable service rendered for consideration, the quid pro quo required for service tax was absent. The royalty was treated as the port trust's share of joint venture revenue, so the service tax demand and related penalty proposal could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334502 Royalty paid under the port arrangement was held not to be consideration for renting or leasing immovable property. Reading the agreement as a whole, the Tribunal found that the port trust granted exclusive port-operating rights, assumed operational obligations, and shared joint control and revenue in a public-private venture, indicating a joint venture rather than a landlord-service recipient relationship. Because there was no direct and identifiable service rendered for consideration, the quid pro quo required for service tax was absent. The royalty was treated as the port trust's share of joint venture revenue, so the service tax demand and related penalty proposal could not be sustained. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334502