<?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 1467 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360903</link>
    <description>Testing charges collected by a statutory water supply board for inspection of pipes used in its own schemes were not consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity was undertaken to verify quality for the board&#039;s works, not at the contractors&#039; desire, and the contractual obligation to bear testing charges did not by itself create a service provider-service recipient relationship. In the absence of quid pro quo and an identifiable service rendered for consideration, the recovered amount could not be treated as taxable value. The board&#039;s statutory functions also supported the view that the testing was incidental to its own obligations, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 16:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1467 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360903</link>
      <description>Testing charges collected by a statutory water supply board for inspection of pipes used in its own schemes were not consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity was undertaken to verify quality for the board&#039;s works, not at the contractors&#039; desire, and the contractual obligation to bear testing charges did not by itself create a service provider-service recipient relationship. In the absence of quid pro quo and an identifiable service rendered for consideration, the recovered amount could not be treated as taxable value. The board&#039;s statutory functions also supported the view that the testing was incidental to its own obligations, so service tax was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>