<?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>2005 (8) TMI 736 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284194</link>
    <description>A company cannot be treated as a non-banking financial company for service tax purposes merely because it holds a registration certificate; the statutory definition also requires that its principal business during the relevant period be receiving deposits or lending money. The material before the authority did not conclusively establish that factual requirement, and the show cause notice itself left that issue for examination on the basis of the information gathered and the company&#039;s reply. Liability therefore could not be fixed solely on the certificate, and the adjudicating authority was required to determine the principal-business question in accordance with law after considering the objections.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 18:18:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 736 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284194</link>
      <description>A company cannot be treated as a non-banking financial company for service tax purposes merely because it holds a registration certificate; the statutory definition also requires that its principal business during the relevant period be receiving deposits or lending money. The material before the authority did not conclusively establish that factual requirement, and the show cause notice itself left that issue for examination on the basis of the information gathered and the company&#039;s reply. Liability therefore could not be fixed solely on the certificate, and the adjudicating authority was required to determine the principal-business question in accordance with law after considering the objections.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>