<?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 (7) TMI 1670 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364362</link>
    <description>Service tax under Banking and Other Financial Services was treated as inapplicable to a public charitable trust engaged in micro-financing because the trust did not fall within the statutory categories of banking company, financial institution or non-banking financial institution under the Finance Act, 1994 read with the RBI Act, 1934. For the period 01.05.2006 to 30.04.2007, the show cause notice proceeded on the narrower allegation that the assessee was a non-banking financial institution, so the demand could not rest on the later wider phrase &quot;any other person&quot; that was not pleaded. The dropped demands for the other periods aligned with the statutory text, and the penalties could not survive once the tax demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:30:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1670 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364362</link>
      <description>Service tax under Banking and Other Financial Services was treated as inapplicable to a public charitable trust engaged in micro-financing because the trust did not fall within the statutory categories of banking company, financial institution or non-banking financial institution under the Finance Act, 1994 read with the RBI Act, 1934. For the period 01.05.2006 to 30.04.2007, the show cause notice proceeded on the narrower allegation that the assessee was a non-banking financial institution, so the demand could not rest on the later wider phrase &quot;any other person&quot; that was not pleaded. The dropped demands for the other periods aligned with the statutory text, and the penalties could not survive once the tax demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>