<?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 (11) TMI 234 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369891</link>
    <description>User Development Fee collected from embarking passengers under a concession arrangement was examined for service tax liability as an airport service. One view held the fee to be consideration for passenger amenities, services and facilities provided under the contractual framework, giving it a direct nexus with the taxable service and making it liable to service tax. The contrary view treated the levy as not shown to be payment for any specific service rendered to passengers, relied on earlier airport-fee distinctions, and emphasised its regulated character. The Members differed on taxability, with one Member holding the fee taxable and the other holding it not taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 234 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369891</link>
      <description>User Development Fee collected from embarking passengers under a concession arrangement was examined for service tax liability as an airport service. One view held the fee to be consideration for passenger amenities, services and facilities provided under the contractual framework, giving it a direct nexus with the taxable service and making it liable to service tax. The contrary view treated the levy as not shown to be payment for any specific service rendered to passengers, relied on earlier airport-fee distinctions, and emphasised its regulated character. The Members differed on taxability, with one Member holding the fee taxable and the other holding it not taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>