https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390661 The Tribunal held that the relationship between the appellant and agents did not amount to providing Franchise Service as the agreement aimed to appoint agents for bill collection, not grant representational rights. Additionally, the onetime fee/security deposit collected was deemed not taxable as a Franchisee fee, as it was refundable and for indemnity purposes. The orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Mar 2021 13:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390661 The Tribunal held that the relationship between the appellant and agents did not amount to providing Franchise Service as the agreement aimed to appoint agents for bill collection, not grant representational rights. Additionally, the onetime fee/security deposit collected was deemed not taxable as a Franchisee fee, as it was refundable and for indemnity purposes. The orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390661