<?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>2018 (5) TMI 487 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359923</link>
    <description>Construction of a hospital run by a charitable trust was held not to be commercial or industrial construction, as health-related construction for non-profit use falls outside that taxable category, and the demand on that count was set aside. GTA service used for construction in a Special Economic Zone was treated as exempt because it was used for authorised operations, and that demand was also set aside. For GTA service linked to hospital construction, the demand survived in part: the first notice was within the extended period, but the second notice could not extend limitation for the earlier period once the department was already aware of the activity. Penalty was upheld only to the extent of the surviving demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 487 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359923</link>
      <description>Construction of a hospital run by a charitable trust was held not to be commercial or industrial construction, as health-related construction for non-profit use falls outside that taxable category, and the demand on that count was set aside. GTA service used for construction in a Special Economic Zone was treated as exempt because it was used for authorised operations, and that demand was also set aside. For GTA service linked to hospital construction, the demand survived in part: the first notice was within the extended period, but the second notice could not extend limitation for the earlier period once the department was already aware of the activity. Penalty was upheld only to the extent of the surviving demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>