<?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>2017 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343157</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that co-owners cannot be jointly liable for service tax on a jointly rented property. It emphasized the importance of distinguishing between service providers and recipients. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appellants were granted relief under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous orders and providing any necessary consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 07:52:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 895 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343157</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that co-owners cannot be jointly liable for service tax on a jointly rented property. It emphasized the importance of distinguishing between service providers and recipients. Consequently, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appellants were granted relief under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous orders and providing any necessary consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>