<?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 (8) TMI 474 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441495</link>
    <description>Site formation and clearance tax applied where development was undertaken for consideration for another person, but not where land was outright purchased and merely self-developed before resale without any separate service element. For land held under a power of attorney arrangement, the Tribunal treated the arrangement as agency, not transfer of title, and found that the appellant could not claim self-service; the development charges for levelling, earth filling, road laying and boundary marking were taxable as site formation and clearance service. The Tribunal also upheld extended limitation and penalty on the basis of suppression and misstatement. The demand was therefore sustained for the GPA-linked activity, while self-development on outright purchases was excluded from tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2026 12:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 474 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441495</link>
      <description>Site formation and clearance tax applied where development was undertaken for consideration for another person, but not where land was outright purchased and merely self-developed before resale without any separate service element. For land held under a power of attorney arrangement, the Tribunal treated the arrangement as agency, not transfer of title, and found that the appellant could not claim self-service; the development charges for levelling, earth filling, road laying and boundary marking were taxable as site formation and clearance service. The Tribunal also upheld extended limitation and penalty on the basis of suppression and misstatement. The demand was therefore sustained for the GPA-linked activity, while self-development on outright purchases was excluded from tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>