https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32336 A restaurant agreement was analysed to determine whether the appellants were providing management consultancy service or operating under a franchise-type arrangement. The operative distinction was that management consultancy covers advice, consultancy or technical assistance, whereas the agreement showed the appellants exercising operational control, prescribing standards, supervising restaurant operations, deploying staff, and enforcing binding directions. On that basis, the activity was treated as actual management rather than consultancy, and the service tax demand could not be sustained under the management consultancy category. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32336 A restaurant agreement was analysed to determine whether the appellants were providing management consultancy service or operating under a franchise-type arrangement. The operative distinction was that management consultancy covers advice, consultancy or technical assistance, whereas the agreement showed the appellants exercising operational control, prescribing standards, supervising restaurant operations, deploying staff, and enforcing binding directions. On that basis, the activity was treated as actual management rather than consultancy, and the service tax demand could not be sustained under the management consultancy category. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32336