https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391783 The tribunal concluded that the appellant was a service provider to M/s Sify Limited under the "business auxiliary service" category, making them liable for service tax. The impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were rejected. The agreement's terms, the appellant's role in providing services to Sify, and the revenue-sharing model supported the finding of a service provider relationship. The tribunal distinguished cited case laws, noting they were not applicable due to differing agreement details. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391783 The tribunal concluded that the appellant was a service provider to M/s Sify Limited under the "business auxiliary service" category, making them liable for service tax. The impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were rejected. The agreement's terms, the appellant's role in providing services to Sify, and the revenue-sharing model supported the finding of a service provider relationship. The tribunal distinguished cited case laws, noting they were not applicable due to differing agreement details. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391783