<?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 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344547</link>
    <description>Service tax demand on management consultancy and manpower recruitment services rendered by a practising chartered accountant for the period before 01.08.2002 was held unsustainable because Notification No. 59/98-ST exempted taxable services provided in professional capacity except those specifically excluded, and the services in question were not among the excluded categories. The Explanation inserted by Notification No. 15/2002-ST was treated as prospective only, since it did not expressly state retrospective effect. The earlier exemption could not be withdrawn retrospectively by the later amendment, and the Board&#039;s circular supported availability of the exemption for the relevant period. The impugned demand was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344547</link>
      <description>Service tax demand on management consultancy and manpower recruitment services rendered by a practising chartered accountant for the period before 01.08.2002 was held unsustainable because Notification No. 59/98-ST exempted taxable services provided in professional capacity except those specifically excluded, and the services in question were not among the excluded categories. The Explanation inserted by Notification No. 15/2002-ST was treated as prospective only, since it did not expressly state retrospective effect. The earlier exemption could not be withdrawn retrospectively by the later amendment, and the Board&#039;s circular supported availability of the exemption for the relevant period. The impugned demand was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>