<?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>2009 (1) TMI 120 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33134</link>
    <description>In a composite outdoor catering contract, the value of food and beverages separately supplied and already subjected to sales tax could be deducted from the service tax base because that component constituted a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) and could not be taxed again as service. Where the records showed the food value was ascertainable and separate invoices were issued, the deduction was permissible under the relevant exemption framework. The text also notes that, on the same facts, invocation of the extended limitation period and the associated penalties was not justified. The composite levy on the full contract value was therefore not sustainable to the extent of the food supply component.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 120 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33134</link>
      <description>In a composite outdoor catering contract, the value of food and beverages separately supplied and already subjected to sales tax could be deducted from the service tax base because that component constituted a deemed sale under Article 366(29A) and could not be taxed again as service. Where the records showed the food value was ascertainable and separate invoices were issued, the deduction was permissible under the relevant exemption framework. The text also notes that, on the same facts, invocation of the extended limitation period and the associated penalties was not justified. The composite levy on the full contract value was therefore not sustainable to the extent of the food supply component.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>