<?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>2020 (4) TMI 834 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394927</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appellant&#039;s application for withdrawal under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, dismissing the appeal with liberty to file for compounding tax imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/03-ST. The issue of supplies as sales and the application of the pre-dominant nature test were key points of contention. The court emphasized the lack of evidence regarding the sale of food and beverages. Additionally, the Tribunal&#039;s decision to charge service tax on the gross amount was upheld, and the imposition of interest and penalty under Section 76 was reviewed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:36:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 834 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394927</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appellant&#039;s application for withdrawal under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, dismissing the appeal with liberty to file for compounding tax imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/03-ST. The issue of supplies as sales and the application of the pre-dominant nature test were key points of contention. The court emphasized the lack of evidence regarding the sale of food and beverages. Additionally, the Tribunal&#039;s decision to charge service tax on the gross amount was upheld, and the imposition of interest and penalty under Section 76 was reviewed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>