<?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>2023 (5) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437719</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order-in-original and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The judgment emphasized that the Act did not provide for levying service tax on indivisible composite works contracts, as clarified by the Supreme Court decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 May 2023 08:03:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437719</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order-in-original and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The judgment emphasized that the Act did not provide for levying service tax on indivisible composite works contracts, as clarified by the Supreme Court decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>