https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382251 Commercial activity by a State-owned corporation in collecting tender amounts and retaining commission was not treated as a statutory or sovereign function, so service tax could not be escaped on that basis. The Court accepted that the corporation acted in a commercial capacity rather than under a vested statutory right. The later insertion of Rule 9A was held to be prospective, not clarificatory, because no retrospective operation was expressly indicated in the notification. As a result, the 1% taxation basis under that rule could not be extended to the earlier period, and the levy sustained by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382251 Commercial activity by a State-owned corporation in collecting tender amounts and retaining commission was not treated as a statutory or sovereign function, so service tax could not be escaped on that basis. The Court accepted that the corporation acted in a commercial capacity rather than under a vested statutory right. The later insertion of Rule 9A was held to be prospective, not clarificatory, because no retrospective operation was expressly indicated in the notification. As a result, the 1% taxation basis under that rule could not be extended to the earlier period, and the levy sustained by the Tribunal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382251